Дана 26/03/01 02:28PM, Gimmi написа:
> 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.
Yes, this (also IANAL). Far from it being forbidden to create a patch
under GNU GPL and publish it on one's own website, but keep in mind it
relicenses the entire modified work under GNU GPL. So the decision of
whether to include such a patch on the suckless.org wiki is entirely on
the "people in charge" here and their policies.
I know that the stance of folks usually using Expat ("MIT") license and
similar "lax" licenses is to "avoid politics" while "giving the maximal
amount of freedom", and they also tend to have a strong opinion on GNU
GPL being "political". (This "neutral" stance, IMHO, in itself
constitutes a political opinion, ironically; however, that is off-topic
in this particular thread.) Given that GNU GPL overrides "lax"
licenses, a feature which some even compare to "a virus", it would be
logical to assume such patches would be frowned upon here.
Anyway, this is all just my assumption about whether stronger-licensed
patches would be welcome on suckless.org. I might be wrong.
