4 ms·
But which license applies to which files?
by johndough 4y ago
But which license applies to which files?
- NickBusey 4y agoYea seems strange. They have copywritten my copywritten files?
- ollien 4y agoIANAL, but check out this law.stackexchange thread. It pertains to the BSD license, but it's very similar https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/4149/can-one-take-bsd-licensed-code-and-distribute-it-under-gpl https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/4149/can-one-take-bs...
- NickBusey 4y agoAnd the 2nd answer seems to say that no, you can't just recopyright something. https://law.stackexchange.com/a/4150 https://law.stackexchange.com/a/4150
- ollien 4y agoSome answers seem to disagree. I, as a non-lawyer, think as long as the git commits make it clear who authored what, it's a non-issue.
- david_allison 4y agoSee the Software Freedom Law Center's guide: https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html#x1-40002.2 https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-colla... There are multiple examples of how to recopyright MIT-style source under the GPL.
- bluesign 4y agocopyright notice just means they have at least partial copyright. It doesn't mean they have copyright to all code.
- _v7gu 4y agoThe whole "conditions" part of the MIT license is this: "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." No requirements for you to keep the licensing constant for unmodified files. If you fork ViviumLab, you're subject to GPL (plus the sublicenses?, but GPL covers that anyway if you don't remove the licenses from your source code); if you fork HomeLab, you're subject to MIT. They don't need to change anything for you to be subject to GPL.