this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2024
84 points (95.7% liked)
Open Source
29014 readers
174 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It should be ok to have your own changes and patches as another compatible license.
The real requirement is that when it's all together and released if there is gpl code then the bundle license needs to be gpl. But you can have individual changes and patches as MIT license if you want.
That is correct. IANAL but you can license your patch-set however you want. Only thing is you can't confuse people which part is which.
It turns out upstream did have the MIT license tucked in there, so it's not like he added it, it was there. Care to join the discussion in the GitHub issue?