[erlang-questions] GNU GPL, MIT, BSD and compatibility

[Matthew Dempsky]

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Richard Carlsson <richardc@REDACTED> wrote:
>  On the contrary, the only way a license *can* be GPL-compatible is
>  if it allows such relicensing. The MIT and Rodified BSD licenses,
>  for example, both allow this (mainly because they do not *disallow*
>  relicensing as long as it is in a compatible way), while the original
>  BSD license with its "banner" clauses is incompatible due to its extra
>  restrictions.

The MIT license explicitly permits sublicensing, but the Modified BSD
license does not.  I don't think your argument is legally sound.