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 "the
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
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 sh
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 deri
