Favico.js – Animated favicons

Re:Favico.js – Animated favicons by sergiotapia on Saturday January 23, 2016 @07:46PM (#10960903)

It has both MIT and GPL licenses.

For us non-lawyers, what does this mean?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Favico.js – Animated favicons by bendykstra on Saturday January 23, 2016 @08:04PM (#10960962)

You get to choose the license that works best for you.

http://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/DualLicensing/

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Favico.js – Animated favicons by conradk on Saturday January 23, 2016 @08:10PM (#10960981)

Isn't MIT compatible with GPL though ? If it is, what's the point of having both ?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Favico.js – Animated favicons by billyhoffman on Saturday January 23, 2016 @10:44PM (#10961368)

From a business's perspective, the MIT license is similar the BSD license: you can incorporate MIT licensed code into commercial products/proprietary code and only have to include copyright notices. GPL has source code disclosure implications which can be deal breakers for some businesses.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Favico.js – Animated favicons by gruez on Sunday January 24, 2016 @12:47AM (#10961638)

I think he was asking why anyone would choose GPL, considering MIT is more permissive in every way.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Favico.js – Animated favicons by simple10 on Sunday January 24, 2016 @01:04AM (#10961667)

Making something dual licensed allows for the next dev to make modifications and then release those mods under his/her preferred license. You could make a mod of favicon.js and release your mod under GPL to ensure any further modification of your code and your favicon.js branch stays under GPL.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Favico.js – Animated favicons by vbernat on Sunday January 24, 2016 @01:39AM (#10961731)

It's possible to release a mod under GPL when the original license is just MIT.

[ Parent | on HN ]