Licensing question (no fight here plz)

[Kim]

My plugin is currently licensed under the MIT License - http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php. It was a fork of another plugin, and I kept the same license that the original plugin had.

Yes, the MIT License is GPL-compatible - I checked into that before I applied for space in the plugin repo.

However, I've completely rewritten the plugin since then (over the course of several versions), so there is little, if any, of the original code left.

I would now like to switch the license on it from the MIT License to the GPLV2 license to ensure there are no problems down the road with license conflicts and the plugin repo.

Anyone know if there are issues/concerns with me switching the license on it now?

[Ipstenu]

I think you're okay. The MIT license specifies that you are granted permission "to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to ... sublicense" Given that I've seen other things 'dual licensed' as both MIT and GPL, you should be okay provided you attribute (credit, whatever) the source. So "original code, Copyright by J. Random Hacker, 2009" Or even 'based on code written by...'

[Kim]

Thanks. Not sure that I want to go the dual-license route.

I made sure to give proper attribution to the original author in the plugin from the beginning, so I should be good to go on that part.

I may just leave it licensed under the MIT license until someone at wordpress.org decides that's no longer acceptable.

[Ipstenu]

Sorry, i was unclear :) I have seen dual license, so I know the two are compatible, though not interchangeable. I would say that, provided you attribute the origin, you're covered by GPL and not contrary to MIT, and thus are legally okay. You CAN change the license from MIT, and it doesn't say 'to something less/more restrictive' so you should be fine :)

[chipbennett]

My plugin is currently licensed under the MIT License - http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php. It was a fork of another plugin, and I kept the same license that the original plugin had.

Yes, the MIT License is GPL-compatible - I checked into that before I applied for space in the plugin repo.

However, I've completely rewritten the plugin since then (over the course of several versions), so there is little, if any, of the original code left.

I would now like to switch the license on it from the MIT License to the GPLV2 license to ensure there are no problems down the road with license conflicts and the plugin repo.

Anyone know if there are issues/concerns with me switching the license on it now?

I say: if it's no longer derivative of the original, then you own the copyright, and can license it however you wish.

So, if you want to license it as GPL, then go right ahead!

(Probably a nice-thing-to-do to credit the original as the source of inspiration, but if it's re-written, the original author really has no copyright claim to your code.)

[Jeffro]

Since MIT is compatible with GPL, I'd just leave it as MIT since those plugins get treated equally as if they were GPLv2 on the repository.

[hakre]

Technically Jeffro is right, there would be no need to dual-license it for whatsoever. So if dual looks odd to you, just "single" to MIT.

If the current code you have is totally re-written by yourself then you can fully decide over it. That includes changing the license. It's common practice to not change the license for minor version number changes. That might irritate your users. So that as an additional hint.

[WraithKenny]

If code is written from a base, isn't it still derivative? I'm not sure, but is paraphrasing copyrighted text derivative? I'm not well versed on this, just presenting a reasonable question.

[chipbennett]

If code is written from a base, isn't it still derivative? I'm not sure, but is paraphrasing copyrighted text derivative? I'm not well versed on this, just presenting a reasonable question.

Not really. The original may have inspired particular output/functionality, but if the code that accomplishes that output/functionality is completely re-written (i.e. different), then it's not derivative.

Of course, the threshold of similarity between the two iterations of code is certainly subject to interpretation.

[hakre]

Keep in mind that we are always inspired by others - that is normal human nature and behavior. So not every copy you see is really something to hunt down, even if we want ^^.