On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 08:32:52AM +0200, Laslo Hunhold wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 20:01:41 +0100
> Daniel Littlewood <danielittlewood_AT_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
Received on Wed Sep 30 2020 - 11:19:43 CEST