Clear up license

[mibalan]

It's very unclear to me whether the code is licensed only under GPLv2+ or it's dual-licensed under GPLv2+ and MIT.
The Readme first states it's GPL+MIT, but then, under the License heading it only mentions GPL (as does the code).

So, which one is it?

It's a pretty important issue for me because it will determine if I can use it in a project or not :)

Thanks in advance!

[faisalman]

Hi thanks for bringing this up, as clearly stated, it's dual licensed under GPL2 & MIT.

Initially I released this code under GPL only, later then added MIT license option since I thought GPL license is too restrictive for those who build non open source applications.

Feel free to use it in your project ;)

[LManiu]

Hi,

Let me first say to you - great work! I am wondering if I can use the UA-Parser in a commercial product with a proprietary license. I see the UA-Parser is "Dual licensed under GPLv2 & MIT". Does this mean the UA-Parser may be distributed under either license (MIT in my case)?

Thanks in advance

[faisalman]

Hi LManiu, thanks, sure you can choose whether to use it under GPL or MIT.
Good luck with your project ;)
On Oct 15, 2015 16:25, "LManiu" notifications@github.com wrote:

Hi,

Let me first say to you - great work! I am wondering if I can use the
UA-Parser in a commercial product with a proprietary license. I see the
UA-Parser is "Dual licensed under GPLv2 & MIT". Does this mean the
UA-Parser may be distributed under either license (MIT in my case)?

Thanks in advance

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1 (comment)
.

[spectejb]

Thanks for making it clear in the code + the readme.file that the OSS is dual licensed (GPL v2 or MIT). Can you please update the license file to include the GPL v2 text too? Thank you!