[codetrotter]

> AFAIK both are _not_ fine, eapecially because the licenses are totally incompatible.

MIT licensed code can be relicensed under GPL with or without modification to the code. It is only the other way around that won’t work. The reason for this are the specific demands made in each license.

See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompati... where the Expat license is listed as compatible. The Expat license is the same license that is usually referred to as the MIT license.

Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License:

> The MIT license is also compatible with many copyleft licenses, such as the GNU General Public License (GPL); MIT licensed software can be integrated into GPL software, but not the other way around

IANAL.

Personally I encourage people to prefer the ISC/BSD/MIT family of license over GPL, but anyone that is set on using a GPL license is within their rights to do so for code derviative of said licenses (and several others as listed in the above linked list of GPL compatible licenses).

[gmfawcett]

Possibly true... but wehther it can be done without modification to the code is a separate issue from whether a license change can be made without the consent of all contributors.

[codetrotter]

What I am saying is that anyone can take MIT licensed code and re-release it as GPL licensed code. That includes anyone of the author without consent from the other authors, or even someone who was not an original author. Specifically because such a change does not violate the terms of the MIT license. Whereas for going the other direction; GPL -> MIT you need consent from all authors (either directly or via a CLA that permits such a change of license).

[bjpbakker]

With incompatibility I meant copyright and patents et al. Not whether you can link MIT from GPL code.

Using a different license on the exact same code withoit consent is very different from linking to that code respeciting its original license.