Good day, gentlemen!

I have a fork of a project whose code is released under GPLv3. Modules written by me, I release under MPL1.1. Do I have the right to change the license to other modules from the GPL to MPL if I made a significant part of the changes in them (naturally referring to the first author)?

  • I do not know for sure, but most likely the consent of all authors will be required. Google transition of Linux kernel from GPL2 to GPL3 - Vladimir Gordeev

2 answers 2

The copyright holder, in this case - the author has the right to change the licensing terms for new releases. However, since this is a derivative work, all the authors are the copyright holder, regardless of the contribution, therefore, general agreement is necessary.

In any case, you cannot change the licensing rules for releases already released under the GPL, they still need to provide the source code, and, accordingly, anyone can make a fork.

  • 3
    And if the project includes parts under the GPL, then the project itself should be distributed under the GPL - alexlz
  • As I understand it, if all the authors participating in the project agree to change the license from the GPL to MPL, then we can safely change it in the whole project? - Valery
  • Bravely - it will be pirate :-) - karmadro4
  • Why is "pirate" if everyone agrees to change the license? - Valery
  • one
    > everyone agrees to change the license. Exactly everyone? Right holder of each patch and each copy-paste? > from the GPL code left Well, you yourself acknowledge that the derivative work ... - karmadro4

When moving from GPL2 to GPL3 consent is usually not required, since at the end it is usually written: "... or a newer version of the GPL".

If you release modules under a different license (not gpl3 ), then you must distribute them separately. The project itself, with or without your modules, can only be distributed under GPL3 .

An exception is possible if the original project is released under several licenses.

  • @drdaeman, read the license carefully. GPL-compatibility means that any piece of code is allowed to be distributed under the GPL, i.e. the version described by you corresponds to the project under several licenses: GPL for the whole project + other compatible licenses for some parts of it, but the same parts are licensed under GPL due to compatibility. - sercxjo
  • one
    @ drdaeman, read your link: "... you can combine text released under this license with text released under the GNU GPL in one larger program. All versions of the GNU GPL allow you to make such combinations without publishing them; they are also allowed to distribute such combinations in case the combination is released under the same version of the GNU GPL . Another license is compatible with the GPL if it also permits it . " So the whole project is distributed under the GPL . And this means that any part of it, including that which is licensed under another license, is also licensed under the GPL. - sercxjo 6:26 pm
  • @sercxjo: Yes, you are right, I was wrong. Excuse me. - drdaeman