On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 04:58:07PM +1200, Miles Rout wrote:
>
>
> On 6 May 2023 8:56:23 pm NZST, "Страхиња Радић" <contact_AT_strahinja.org> 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 contribute to, because once the
> >license is picked, software it applies to can't be relicensed.
>
> 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 derived from B. You aren't licensing B, which is someone else's work. You do need to credit B's copyright holders of course.
>
> Have I got something wrong here? I am no copyright lawyer, that is for sure, so I cannot claim any expertise. Or did you mean something different?
>
> >Here we come to my main point: that this is a troll topic, promoting division
> >and pushing the main suckless principles to the background. Consequently, I
> >already wrote too much here.
>
> I see no trolling in this thread. Suckless people generally seem to respect others' opinions. Nice to see in this day and age!
>
> Kind regards,
> Miles.
>
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 applies.
--
Kind regards,
Hiltjo
Received on Sun Jun 18 2023 - 11:44:18 CEST