Neither the MIT license nor the GPL-2 are included with the soure

[simonft]

Not a huge issue, but people pulling in your repo technically violate the licenses when doing so if they don't add the license themselves.

[mhulse]

Any reason not to upgrade to GPL-3?

GPL-3 found here:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt

MIT here:

http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

Plain text file here.

Don't forget to change this line:

Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

Personally, as a matter of style, I put the above files in my repos and name them MIT-LICENSE and GPL-LICENSE. No need to have an extension as txt is default.

[eddiemonge]

Or drop GPL altogether. Or explain what duality is meant. Free to choose or required under certain conditions?

[jonathantneal]

1. No one has actually said "I have a problem", let alone lawyered up.
2. IMO, the MIT/GPL duality we see on the web is a typo no one wants to correct.
3. IMPO, lessons learned before CC0.

[eddiemonge]

I have a problem. The new corporate policy is no GPL license software in our shipped products (unless we can ignore the GPL part of a dual licensed with MIT)

[jonathantneal]

Which GPL? Or all GPLs? GPL2 and GPL3 are vastly different.

[eddiemonge]

all GPL's

[miketaylr]

@eddiemonge you should have your corporate lawyer examine what it means to be dual licensed under MIT GPL. AFAIK it means you can choose either MIT or GPL, but IANAL. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing. But really, this is something only your corporate lawyer can answer for your needs.

[simonft]

No one has actually said "I have a problem", let alone lawyered up.

The problem I had was I was attempting to package it for Debian, but they tend to be strict about unclear licensing.

IMO, the MIT/GPL duality we see on the web is a typo no one wants to correct.

I'm not sure I understand what this means.

On a related note, though this might be a separate ticket, there is no one "MIT License". To quote wikipedia:

Because MIT has used many licenses for software, "MIT License" is considered ambiguous by the Free Software Foundation. "MIT License" may refer to the "Expat License" (used for Expat)[2] or to the "X11 License" (also called "MIT/X Consortium License"; used for the X Window System by the MIT X Consortium).[3]

[remy]

To chime in, the GPL license is on the file for the Drupal community. Apparently they can't include the shiv without that license, so I added it way back (probably around 2010, though I can't quite recall exactly when).

If there's demand, I might try to find the original request...though it might be buried in the web somewhere....

[remy]

...or I could just search my email:

If only to have some record of why the shiv is GPL too.

[eddiemonge]

Are they still including jQuery since its fully MIT only now?

[jonathantneal]

@eddiemonge, dual-licensed software lets you choose which license terms you want to use.

@simonft, we'll either commit a license file or talk with afarkas, jdalton, and rem about switching to MIT (or maybe even public domain).

Licenses suck. We just want to help people.