On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 08:32:52AM +0200, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 20:01:41 +0100 > Daniel Littlewood <danielittlew...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Daniel, > > > Thanks for your reply - I appreciate that this does not have much > > practical importance. Unfortunately the simplest way for me to version > > my dwm copy is by hosting it on Github, which is in some sense > > "publishing" it. I was hoping to be able to do this without worrying, > > but it seems that the MIT license offers no such guarantee. I wonder > > if the suckless team had considered using the GPL (which would). > > in my opinion the GPL is too restrictive. Many people (including > myself) actively avoid GPL-software in their workflows, as the > copyleft-scheme spreads like cancer, especially with the GPLv3, which > basically forces you to license your project under the GPLv3 if you use > a GPLv3-library in your project. I know, there's the LGPLv3 for > libraries, but many many libraries are licensed as GPLv3. >
I actively search for FOSS in my life and think using software which is GPL-licensed is fine. Maybe spreading virally is a better term (although maybe not currently :)). It is "restrictive" in this sense it forces a direction, which is by design. > > Of course, it's true that in practice that a patcher is unlikely to > > care if their patch is shared more widely (and not all of them are so > > small). But after all, one could probably say the same about dwm's > > license itself. If I choose to share the thing more widely, I will > > probably take the pains to contact them. After all, it's best to be > > sure. > > I wouldn't worry about that. In Germany there's a concept of a > "Schöpfungshöhe" (i.e. threshold of originality), and I don't think > that it's even reached with most of the patches in the wiki. > > With best regards > > Laslo > -- Kind regards, Hiltjo
