Thank you Thomas, I guess there is nothing, that I am aware of, that
prevents me from releasing with GPL >= 2 but I wanted to get some insights
as to what would be a best practice. I prefer to give as much credit as
possible where it is do.
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Thomas Petzoldt <
thom
Hi,
I am not a lawyer, but as far as I know, the MIT license allows
re-licensing of derived work under the GPL.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
So what speaks against releasing your derived work under the GPL >= 2?
Thomas
On
IANAL, too, but if you are indeed extending (i.e. embedding or
copying) another package, then you need to put all copyright holders
into the LICENSE file.
In the individual files, you can explain who has the copyright for
what. If you don't change the copied files at all, that is simple,
just add
IANAL, but if you are just importing or depending on another package, you
shouldn't need to worry about this. If you
copied their code into your own package, you should probably rethink your
approach.
At my job, several of my coworkers had copy/pasted code from stack
overflow, which carries a CC l
When developing a new package we want to have a license attributed to that
package. That said, I am a little confused how one would approach the MIT
license. I am working on a package that extends upon another library that
has the MIT license. I know that I need to create a LICENSE file with YEA
