On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 20:01:41 +0100 Daniel Littlewood <danielittlew...@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. > 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