> It's a copyright notice and a permission notice. That doesn't require a "credits page".
Of course it doesn't. I tried to come up with a real world example because people (obviously) have a hard time figuring out what it means. I also added that the "credits page" might just be a folder full of licenses somewhere inside your project's directory structure. I hear you though.
> jeffmould said that the code from ProjectA which is in ProjectB is not subject ProjectB's license. You said that the code is subject to a dual license. This is a post-hoc contradiction.
I said it could be subject to two licenses. It doesn't have to, of course. You've also mentioned license compatibility in your other comment — I think you're trying to explain to me that my license can't revoke any rights granted to you by "the other" license. Does that sound about right?
"not sure how you'd satisfy the condition without one" doesn't fit with "Of course it doesn't."
Regarding the second point, code from ProjectA, released under the MIT license, which is in ProjectB is not subject to ProjectB's copyright. This was jeffmould's scenario, and this code is not subject to two licenses.
The ProjectB developers must do some creative act to the code before they can assert copyright on the modified code. Copying code from multiple sources is then subject to both licenses.
> A corollary of the “sameness” requirement is that “[c]opying deleted or so disguised as to be unrecognizable is not copying.” See v. Durang, 711 F.2d 141, 142 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Winship Green Nursing Ctr., 103 F.3d 196, 203 n.6 (1st Cir. 1996) (“Even if a work is copied, however, no copyright infringement exists if substantial changes render the work unrecognizable.”); Warner Bros. Inc. v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 720 F.2d 231, 241 (2d Cir. 1983) (“‘[A] defendant may legitimately avoid infringement by intentionally making sufficient changes in a work which would otherwise be regarded as substantially similar to that of the plaintiff’s.’” (quoting 3 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.03[B] at 13-38.1 to -38.2 (1983)).
Which means that you could, with sufficient changes to the code, revoke rights granted by the other license. This is how Berkeley extracted itself from the AT&T license for Unix.
> It's a copyright notice and a permission notice. That doesn't require a "credits page".
Of course it doesn't. I tried to come up with a real world example because people (obviously) have a hard time figuring out what it means. I also added that the "credits page" might just be a folder full of licenses somewhere inside your project's directory structure. I hear you though.
> jeffmould said that the code from ProjectA which is in ProjectB is not subject ProjectB's license. You said that the code is subject to a dual license. This is a post-hoc contradiction.
I said it could be subject to two licenses. It doesn't have to, of course. You've also mentioned license compatibility in your other comment — I think you're trying to explain to me that my license can't revoke any rights granted to you by "the other" license. Does that sound about right?