On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:52:11PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> However, if you're worried you could patch in an extra bit of commentary
> in the header files. There's no need to repack the original tarball for
> this, and you mustn't remove the MIT licence notices (doing so would
> likely itself
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 09:30:38PM +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
> Colin Watson writes:
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:41:07AM +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
> >> A package I maintain (src:gudhi) was mostly under GPL-3+ up to and
> >> including the current version in the archives. Since then,
Sorry Gary,
i just make a mistake - you can't relicense MIT(X11) stuff - it would
work only with some BSD files. You could modify the license (just as in
ncurses) and be done with - i would like to recommend not to do so.
Cheers
Alf
❦ 24 septembre 2019 10:41 +02, Gard Spreemann :
> A package I maintain (src:gudhi) was mostly under GPL-3+ up to and
> including the current version in the archives. Since then, upstream has
> switched to an MIT license, but with the caveat that many parts of the
> code has GPL dependencies and
Plain no. If they are really interested they would know that they can
use every MIT part under GPL because of license compatibilty. Things
change dramatically if you would consider to change the licenses of the
files - if one would contribute to your now forked files the original
project would
Colin Watson writes:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:41:07AM +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
>> A package I maintain (src:gudhi) was mostly under GPL-3+ up to and
>> including the current version in the archives. Since then, upstream has
>> switched to an MIT license, but with the caveat that many
Filippo Rusconi writes:
> Greetings,
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:41:07AM +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
>>Hello,
>>
>>A package I maintain (src:gudhi) was mostly under GPL-3+ up to and
>>including the current version in the archives. Since then, upstream has
>>switched to an MIT license, but
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:41:07AM +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
> A package I maintain (src:gudhi) was mostly under GPL-3+ up to and
> including the current version in the archives. Since then, upstream has
> switched to an MIT license, but with the caveat that many parts of the
> code has GPL
Greetings,
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:41:07AM +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
Hello,
A package I maintain (src:gudhi) was mostly under GPL-3+ up to and
including the current version in the archives. Since then, upstream has
switched to an MIT license, but with the caveat that many parts of the
Hello,
A package I maintain (src:gudhi) was mostly under GPL-3+ up to and
including the current version in the archives. Since then, upstream has
switched to an MIT license, but with the caveat that many parts of the
code has GPL dependencies and that "for practical purposes this code is
GPL-3
10 matches
Mail list logo
