Hello,
On 01/03/2026 14:06, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2026-03-01 12:38:30 +0000, Gimmi wrote:
If I were to publish a patch to a software, I can put the patch under the
license I want and I can choose the GPL: the problem of complying with the
requirements of both licenses is, legally speaking, on the person that
applies the patch.
Worse, if a patch does not specify a license, according to current copyright
law, you cannot redistribute it (I don't even know if you can actually _use_
it).
A patch yields a modified version of the original work, whose license
may imply obligations on the license of such modified versions.
I am *not* a lawyer, however, AFAIK this is true if the license of the
original work has restrictions.
The MIT/X license under which suckless tools are, gives you the freedom
to sublicense the results, hence to change the license of the patched
software.
So the question of "How is the patch licensed" is still relevant IMO.
--
Gimmi
