3 ms·

> Shitty is moving from the imported GPL baseline to an MIT-only codebase. It does not intend to retain the GPL as the final project license. that's really som

> Shitty is moving from the imported GPL baseline to an MIT-only codebase. It does not intend to retain the GPL as the final project license. that's really something that cannot be done if you don't have the original right of the code. It's 100% derived work and thus has to preserve GPL license, even if you rewrite every single line.

pg83 2mo ago
I'll probably stick to the perspective expressed to me by the lawyer (I actually consulted on this topic), rather than the opinion of some random "GPL zealot" on the internet. The procedure described has been done many times, is well described, and is quite feasible, albeit quite complex. I think I can handle it! And, in any case, anyone who wants to can sue me in a real court, not an online one.
- pg83 2mo ago
  The procedure is quite simple in principle: each new contributor confirms their permission to use their code under two licenses—MIT and GPL3. After a while, the entire codebase becomes dual-licensed. At that point, I leave it as is and (tentatively) copy the MIT portion to another location. Yes, the derived work will still remain under the dual license, and therefore under the GPL3 as well, but no one can stop me from copying the MIT portion, which, by coincidence, will cover the entire project. This isn't relicensing; it's rewriting it under a dual license.
  - potamic 2mo ago
    It does seem to be quite some (very boring) work. I'm curious about your reasons for taking it up. Is it more of a principles kind of a thing or do you see it could make a difference to the project in the end?
    - pg83 2mo ago
      At the very least, the ability to use the code as a library. A library under the GPL3 is unlikely to be popular.
- fwlr 2mo ago
  Hmm. Sounds like it follows the letter of the law (although much of it is LLM-generated, and there’s obviously quite a legal cloud surrounding that), but it does feel a bit against the spirit to me. Overall, I am quite satisfied with the name you’ve given it.
- tdeck 2mo ago
  Seems like a missed opportunity to use a license more aligned with the project's naming convention. https://www.wtfpl.net/ https://www.wtfpl.net/
- graemep 2mo ago
  I am more interested in why ?. Do you think its likely that people will want to use this code in proprietary software and you do not want the GPL to block this ? Do you feel as a matter of principle that people are free to do so regardless of whether they actually want to or not?
  - pg83 2mo ago
    I don't like the GPL, and I don't like the GNU movement. In my opinion, they're hypocrites. Hypocrites steal the term "free" from the community when they're not, and, in fact, they're hypocritical when they use the term "freedom." The GNU/GPL is much closer to a commercial organization because they don't give me the code for free. They want all my changes in exchange for their code. How is that better than a commercial organization that just wants money? For me, the open source movement is, first and foremost, charity, and I don't understand how anyone can demand anything in return for charity. The fact that an evil corporation can take a piece of my code and close it doesn't bother me; it's charity for the good of society.
  - pg83 2mo ago
    From a technical point of view, it is, of course, more important to me that my terminal widget (when it appears) can be used by anyone and in any way.

pg83 2mo ago

I'll probably stick to the perspective expressed to me by the lawyer (I actually consulted on this topic), rather than the opinion of some random "GPL zealot" on the internet. The procedure described has been done many times, is well described, and is quite feasible, albeit quite complex. I think I can handle it! And, in any case, anyone who wants to can sue me in a real court, not an online one.

pg83 2mo ago
The procedure is quite simple in principle: each new contributor confirms their permission to use their code under two licenses—MIT and GPL3. After a while, the entire codebase becomes dual-licensed. At that point, I leave it as is and (tentatively) copy the MIT portion to another location. Yes, the derived work will still remain under the dual license, and therefore under the GPL3 as well, but no one can stop me from copying the MIT portion, which, by coincidence, will cover the entire project. This isn't relicensing; it's rewriting it under a dual license.
- potamic 2mo ago
  It does seem to be quite some (very boring) work. I'm curious about your reasons for taking it up. Is it more of a principles kind of a thing or do you see it could make a difference to the project in the end?
  - pg83 2mo ago
    At the very least, the ability to use the code as a library. A library under the GPL3 is unlikely to be popular.
fwlr 2mo ago
Hmm. Sounds like it follows the letter of the law (although much of it is LLM-generated, and there’s obviously quite a legal cloud surrounding that), but it does feel a bit against the spirit to me. Overall, I am quite satisfied with the name you’ve given it.
tdeck 2mo ago
Seems like a missed opportunity to use a license more aligned with the project's naming convention. https://www.wtfpl.net/ https://www.wtfpl.net/
graemep 2mo ago
I am more interested in why ?. Do you think its likely that people will want to use this code in proprietary software and you do not want the GPL to block this ? Do you feel as a matter of principle that people are free to do so regardless of whether they actually want to or not?
- pg83 2mo ago
  I don't like the GPL, and I don't like the GNU movement. In my opinion, they're hypocrites. Hypocrites steal the term "free" from the community when they're not, and, in fact, they're hypocritical when they use the term "freedom." The GNU/GPL is much closer to a commercial organization because they don't give me the code for free. They want all my changes in exchange for their code. How is that better than a commercial organization that just wants money? For me, the open source movement is, first and foremost, charity, and I don't understand how anyone can demand anything in return for charity. The fact that an evil corporation can take a piece of my code and close it doesn't bother me; it's charity for the good of society.
- pg83 2mo ago
  From a technical point of view, it is, of course, more important to me that my terminal widget (when it appears) can be used by anyone and in any way.