Re: [dev] [dwm] New software: swm & infobary

From: Raymond Cole <rc_AT_wolog.xyz>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 05:57:37 +0000

On 24/10/25 05:03PM, Chris Down wrote:
> Raymond Cole writes:
> > My bad. I thought of that notice as transitional so didn't treat it
> > very rigorously. I've updated swm to meet the requirement.
> >
> > I realize that the previous deal of including that piece of notice
> > in exchange of relicensing might be considered quite insufficient by
> > you guys. Here's another deal: I copy the names from dwm's MIT LICENSE
> > file to swm's GPL LICENSE file, append my name to it and, in source files,
> > reference the LICENSE file for copyright details. What do you think?
>
> Neither this nor your previous implementation are sufficient. You must
> maintain all authoring information in the Git commit history, since:
>
> 1. The LICENSE file authors list is not exhaustive;
> 2. Even if it was, it's not clear which parts are from dwm;
> 3. In MIT, authors retain copyright over their individual contributions;
> 4. Erasing Git history conceals authorship, which is a license violation.
>
> The Git history reflects each contributor's authorship, which must remain
> intact to honour the MIT license requirements.
>
> Please restore the entire Git changelog history and apply your changes on
> top. Only then can you incorporate your GPL additions in a compliant way.
>

Come on, Chris. The conditions dwm's license imposes is "The above
copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included", not
"Exactly what parts are copied and their authorship shall be indicated"
or whatever. (Or if you are giving that as a condition for granting
relicensing permission, make it clear.)

And since copied dwm's code has been completely refactored and reordered,
even if I could include the git changelog, tracing down the original
authorship of a piece of code wouldn't be made simpler than by comparing
with dwm's code, anyway. By the way, I didn't intentionally conceal
the git history of swm, I simply developed swm without using git.

I suggest considering swm as a new project that borrows code from dwm.
You see, if you exclude drw.c (for which I don't mind retaining the
original dwm license if required), about 50% of the code is completely
original, and another 30% percent was originally based on dwm's code but
modified enough that it could just as well be original. Must a project
that borrows code from dwm include dwm's entire git history?

Anyway. I am not asking dwm developers about how to handle dwm's license
approperiately, my problem is under what condition could you people grant
me the permission to relicense dwm derived code under GPL? What I've
offered was to give you dwm developers not less attributions to swm than
what dwm's MIT license requires. What's your answer to this?

Finally, has anyone actually looked at things of my projects other than
the license?
Received on Sat Oct 26 2024 - 07:57:37 CEST