Raymond Cole writes:
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.)
Please learn how MIT licensing works.
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?
This isn't a negotiation. License compliance isn't a matter of "sufficiency" by your terms. Restore the Git history, or violate the license: it's as simple as that.
