@nicksellen In my opinion you can do that. MIT is not copyleft, so it allows you to fork the project and put it under another licence. (Maybe there's a requirement about mentioning the former authors, but I'm not sure. Should be easy to find out.)
There could be patent issues though. The original copyright owners can sue you for patent infringement. (In contrast the Apache 2 licence says that the copyright owner will not sue you for that)
@t0k it seems a bit trickier than that:
https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT talks about "sublicenseing" and also says "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."
and actually a bit hard to find out! was drowning in stack overflow comments, thats why I was looking for some projects that had actually done it. getting some good engagement on here though 👍
@nicksellen en.wikipedia.org says: "MIT licensed software can be re-licensed as GPL software [...]". But yes, I think it is good to check.
As I understand MIT allows basically everything including sublicencing. There's the condition to include the copyright notice and permission notice (Wikipedia says that disappears on relicencing). I see no reason that would withhold you from publishing your own contributions under AGPL. If they are substantial, that practically makes the full project AGPL.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!