Am Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 04:44:44PM +0200 schrieb Страхиња Радић:
> On second thought, I think Markus may be right. It is GPL which would forbid
> non-compatible sublicensing (which is changing the license of derived works
> *completely*), not Expat. Under Expat, you can sublicense *your copy/fork*
On 23/06/18 09:01, Страхиња Радић wrote:
> You can't license the whole of A as GPL, only your modifications.
[...]
> which explicitely forbids removing the copyright and permission notices on
> Expat-licensed code, or replacing them with, say, GPL notices.
On second thought, I think Markus may be
On 23/06/20 08:41, Miles Rout wrote:
> It requires the notice is included (so people know that that code is
> available elsewhere under that licence), not that the notice is included _as
> your licence for the overall work_.
As someone else said, "words do matter". Copyright notice is not "just
On 23/06/18 04:58PM, Miles Rout wrote:
> As far as I understand, if you create a work (A) that is a fork of another
> work (B), where B is MIT-licensed, nothing stops you from licensing A as GPL.
> I
> wouldn't call it "relicensing": you're licensing your own work, A, which
> happens to be
Hi Hiltjo,
> you'd have to keep both the MIT license with the original copyright
> information.
I believe this part is true because almost all MIT style licenses (with
some exception such as `MIT-0`) have the following restriction:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice
Am Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 11:44:18AM +0200 schrieb Hiltjo Posthuma:
> Hi,
>
> I think you can relicense only your own changes to GPL, so you'd have to keep
> both the MIT and GPL license with the original copyright information.
>
> And probably explain very clearly to which new parts the GPL license
On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 04:58:07PM +1200, Miles Rout wrote:
>
>
> On 6 May 2023 8:56:23 pm NZST, "Страхиња Радић" wrote:
> > But that is pointless to
> >bring up here, because the reality is that the programmers who made suckless
> >software mostly picked Expat License (and are calling it
On 6 May 2023 8:56:23 pm NZST, "Страхиња Радић" wrote:
> But that is pointless to
>bring up here, because the reality is that the programmers who made suckless
>software mostly picked Expat License (and are calling it "the MIT License").
>It
>is irrelevant for non-GPL programs I fork or
Hello, fellow magicians and wizards.
This comment doesn't reply to anyone's comment in particular, just my opinion
on the matter.
TL;DR: Intellectual Property should be denied right to exist, same with
government's abusive power over our lives in which we are approved less and
less security,
On Sun, May 07, 2023 at 11:31:04AM +0200, Страхиња Радић wrote:
> but the arguments presented in it leave me unconvinced.
The "maneuverings" argument in specific was entirely misdiagnosed. Even
in his own example (redhat trying to remove /etc) you can clearly see it
has nothing to do with GPL and
On 23/05/06 09:55PM, Laslo Hunhold wrote:
> [0]:https://unixsheikh.com/articles/the-problems-with-the-gpl.html
Dear Laslo,
Thank you for reminding me of Unixsheikh's article on his view of GPL and other
licenses. I read it a while ago, but the arguments presented in it leave me
unconvinced. I
On Sat, 6 May 2023 10:56:23 +0200
Страхиња Радић wrote:
> [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
> [2]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html
> [3]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
> [4]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html
Thank you for your
On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 09:05:39AM +0100, Ray Garner wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've been using suckless tools such as dwm and st for a while now and
> think theyre great, my question is to do with software licenses.
>
> I'm curious about licensing and was wondering why suckless tools are
> released under
On 23/05/05 08:07AM, Laslo Hunhold wrote:
> I try to take a balanced stance in the GPL vs. MIT discussion, given it
> usually derails into tribalist diatribes on both sides.
Essays have been written and are available online explaining everything about
GPL and related licenses, so there's no need
On Thu, 4 May 2023, at 09:05, Ray Garner wrote:
>
> I've been using suckless tools such as dwm and st for a while now and
> think theyre great, my question is to do with software licenses.
>
> I'm curious about licensing and was wondering why suckless tools are
> released under MIT rather than an
Hi
I've been using suckless tools such as dwm and st for a while now and
think theyre great, my question is to do with software licenses.
I'm curious about licensing and was wondering why suckless tools are
released under MIT rather than an alternative like GPL. Is it just to make
it compatible
16 matches
Mail list logo
