15

I have an Android Game I've written that I released under the MIT license. Recently, there have been several people who have downloaded the source of my application, added ads and uploaded it to the Google Play store.

While this irks me, there's nothing legally wrong with what they are doing since my project is licensed under the MIT license. In order to stop this however, I'd like to relicense my application under the GPL.

The entirety of the code in its current state was written by me (minus ~3 lines or so that can be easily removed), however, the app has been translated into a few different languages by users, who have added their translations through GitHub pull requests.

Two Questions:

  1. Is relicensing my project under the GPL an good way to stop people from reuploading it as proprietary software with ads?

  2. If I decide to relicense my project under the GPL, do I need to track down everybody who has modified the translation files and get their permission? I know that this is the case when it comes to the code, however I'm not sure how this works with non code assets.

linuxuser
  • 153
  • 1
  • 5
  • 1
    This doesn't answer the question but is important to understand your rights. Check if the apps include your copyright notice and the MIT license. If not, they are in violation of the license and you can sue them for copyright infringement and damages. I'm not a lawyer but as far as I can see the damages would be not attributing your work because if your work was rightfully attributed you would be getting publicity from the app's users. – CausingUnderflowsEverywhere Aug 13 '22 at 02:33

1 Answers1

17

Just like everyone can take your MIT-licensed software and make it proprietary without having to ask all of its authors for permission, you can take your MIT-licensed software and license it under the GPL without asking the contributors.

MIT-licensed software can be integrated/made into GPL-licensed software. The other way around is not possible.

The FSF curates a list of GPL-compatible licenses, which includes the two licenses often called "MIT license":

  • X11 license

    […] is a lax permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL

  • Expat license

    […] is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL

If you change the license to the GPL, and make changes to the software so that it differs from the version that is (and always will be) licensed under MIT, no one may distribute this new version as proprietary software without asking all authors for permission.

Of course this doesn’t stop someone from including ads in the software, but they would have to follow the terms of the GPL when distributing it (i.e., providing the source code and licensing it under the GPL, too).

Community
  • 1
unor
  • 5,620
  • 24
  • 55
  • 1
    To expand on the other half of this question, in almost every case I have seen, translation files are considered part of the source for a given program. (If source is speech, speech can also be source). So in the example, you have given, you would likely also need to either get explicit permission to re-license the translation files or remove them from the project. (IANAL/IANYL) – xzilla Aug 06 '19 at 02:03
  • This does mean, for the OP, though that it would only be a very slight deterrent, and no solution. – mirabilos Aug 20 '19 at 13:55
  • 2
    @xzilla read the answer more carefully. MIT-licensed content can be used as part of a project which is licensed in its entirety under the GPL. The translation files can be reused in this way, and are therefore not an issue. – MadHatter Nov 13 '19 at 08:57
  • @MadHatter "entirety under the GPL" that IMHO contradicts with "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." which implies that substantial portion is still MIT. Or not? – Martian2020 Sep 06 '21 at 04:05
  • @Martian2020 to my mind, no. Requiring the reproduction of text is not the same as requiring that text to be the sole copyright licence applicable to the content. If it were so, then GPLv3 s4 ("provided that you ... give all recipients a copy of this License") would imply GPLv3 s5c ("You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License"), and there would be no need for the latter. – MadHatter Sep 09 '21 at 12:16
  • @MadHatter you write "not the same as requiring that text to be the SOLE copyright licence ", so if new work will have GPL license for new code and MIT for part - if not SOLE that I understand, but you wrote before "entirety under the GPL", so I understood you mean SOLE will be GPL...I'm still confused. – Martian2020 Sep 09 '21 at 13:40
  • 2
    @Martian2020 yes, I meant the licence governing the new work will be the GPL, as the GPL requires, and this is permitted because the MIT licence requires that its text be reproduced, but not that it also be the sole applicable copyright licence. If that's still unclear, I recommend asking a new question, instead of continuing the discussion here. – MadHatter Sep 10 '21 at 07:17
  • @madHatter, that way I agree it is clear what you meant now. I just doubted most of readers understand "a project in its entirety" means only new code. – Martian2020 Sep 11 '21 at 03:04
  • 1
    @Martian2020 it doesn't. A work is a thing, entire of itself; if the new work is the combination of the old MIT-licensed work and anything under GPL that's been added, this entire work must be distributed under GPL. I have said that three times now, for all that you seem very keen to have me clarify that I've not said it at all. – MadHatter Sep 11 '21 at 06:13
  • @MadHatter, thank you. Now I get it by recalling term of something like compatibility. All is GPL and part of it is also MIT and that is OK - that is what you meant, right? – Martian2020 Sep 11 '21 at 13:18
  • @Martian2020 I wish you'd stop paraphrasing me, and read what I'm writing. When I say it's all GPL, I mean it's all GPL. That's it. – MadHatter Sep 11 '21 at 13:35
  • @MadHatter, ok, you said what you said. I would then reiterate my (although amended) opinion: if part of it is not also MIT, AFAIK it would be a violation of MIT license - but that is again my understanding. – Martian2020 Sep 11 '21 at 15:29
  • 2
    @Martian2020 then I encourage you to read this answer on law.SE. I also recommend the approach I take in this answer: once code received under MIT is placed under the GPL tarpaulin - which MIT allows - it may not be taken out again (without much consent). You can get it from the original distributor, under the original licence, but you may not abstract it from the GPL'ed work and claim it is again under MIT-only. – MadHatter Sep 11 '21 at 16:36
  • @MadHatter, interesting, looks like you encourage me to further affirm my understanding, which as far as I understood you consider not completely correct, as the answer you linked from law SE says: "under the COMBINED terms of both the BSD and the GPL licences.". As for second link, I would agree that if MIT license allowed omission of notice provided license for derived work is such and such (and GPL matched), then only GPL would be fine (again per my understanding). – Martian2020 Sep 12 '21 at 03:35
  • 1
    @Martian2020 if you want to further discuss the matter, feel free to ask a question. Please do not continue it here. – MadHatter Sep 12 '21 at 05:04
  • Technically, the MIT code is and always remains MIT licensed, however, once it is put into a GPL licensed work, extracting the MIT licensed part becomes problematic since even small changes would render it a derivative of the MIT licensed work, and therefore becomes GPL licensed. That is why you have to go to the MIT licensed source to make sure you get a truly free and clear MIT licensed version. – Scott M. Stolz Jun 10 '22 at 01:16