The only reason you perceive my comment as disingenuous is because you’re on the authoritarian side of the political spectrum. Again: me writing new code on existing software and wanting to license it as MIT takes away nobody’s freedom, it just doesn’t comply with your dictator’s fantasy.
The rest of your comment is really just you trying to cope with the insanity of the licence you choose to defend. There’s legal precedent saying adding to code doesn’t count as using the code but the FSF will still sue you if you license your work how you see fit. Authoritarianism at its best.
@stevedice@Adanisi when you writing code in any project, you have copyright on your own code. Nothing prevents you reusing your code with other (even closed source) form until you sign some additional agreement. Yes, you cannot change license of other’s code and keep mixed code non-GPL, so you might be need to keep your code in separate file with permissive GPL compatible license to prevent mixing with GPL code.
Even if you keep your code in a separate file, if you link to GPL code, according to the FSF, your code should be GPL. The law says otherwise but they would still sue you.
@stevedice so, what about dual-licensed code like wine/crossover or qt?
Linking to GPL code means code must be COMPATIBLE with GPL and resulting work must be distrubuted with same GPL. But same code, that not becomes part of this work can use different license if code author deside use it. You can dual-license your file with MIT/GPL and use it in GPL software. It will use GPL when build in GPL projects, and MIT in non-GPL. You cannot use BSD code in GPL software because BSD adds requirements that not compatible with GPL (but explicit dual-licensing GPL/BSD seems to be possible)
Lol I already stated how you absolutely can write MIT code in a GPL project (this also makes your point about legal precedent moot, since the license of the GPL code technically does not dictate the license of other code, just the software using the GPL code). Did you miss that or choose to ignore it? I also never said there’s anything wrong with permissively-licensed code.
The rest is clearly ad hominem. If I were a fan of authoritarianism, I’d write proprietary software.
That’s an MIT licensed file in a GPL project, bearing it’s original MIT license. If you wanted to use that file in your project you would be abiding by the terms of the MIT license, not the GPL (unless you wanted to).
The only reason you perceive my comment as disingenuous is because you’re on the authoritarian side of the political spectrum. Again: me writing new code on existing software and wanting to license it as MIT takes away nobody’s freedom, it just doesn’t comply with your dictator’s fantasy.
The rest of your comment is really just you trying to cope with the insanity of the licence you choose to defend. There’s legal precedent saying adding to code doesn’t count as using the code but the FSF will still sue you if you license your work how you see fit. Authoritarianism at its best.
ad hominem
Whatever you want to believe.
@stevedice @Adanisi when you writing code in any project, you have copyright on your own code. Nothing prevents you reusing your code with other (even closed source) form until you sign some additional agreement. Yes, you cannot change license of other’s code and keep mixed code non-GPL, so you might be need to keep your code in separate file with permissive GPL compatible license to prevent mixing with GPL code.
Even if you keep your code in a separate file, if you link to GPL code, according to the FSF, your code should be GPL. The law says otherwise but they would still sue you.
@stevedice so, what about dual-licensed code like wine/crossover or qt?
Linking to GPL code means code must be COMPATIBLE with GPL and resulting work must be distrubuted with same GPL. But same code, that not becomes part of this work can use different license if code author deside use it. You can dual-license your file with MIT/GPL and use it in GPL software. It will use GPL when build in GPL projects, and MIT in non-GPL. You cannot use BSD code in GPL software because BSD adds requirements that not compatible with GPL (but explicit dual-licensing GPL/BSD seems to be possible)
Lol I already stated how you absolutely can write MIT code in a GPL project (this also makes your point about legal precedent moot, since the license of the GPL code technically does not dictate the license of other code, just the software using the GPL code). Did you miss that or choose to ignore it? I also never said there’s anything wrong with permissively-licensed code.
The rest is clearly ad hominem. If I were a fan of authoritarianism, I’d write proprietary software.
What you stated was a lie. I don’t know what to tell you 🤷🏻
You’re telling me you can’t license a file under MIT/BSD in a GPL project? And that I’m a liar for saying you can?
Explain this, then: https://github.com/KDE/krita/blob/d83168fc6f0b4f671e236b34a7ada66dd29aeb5e/3rdparty_vendor/raqm/src/raqm-0.10.1/src/raqm.c
That’s an MIT licensed file in a GPL project, bearing it’s original MIT license. If you wanted to use that file in your project you would be abiding by the terms of the MIT license, not the GPL (unless you wanted to).
So, who’s the liar?