Quote:
Originally Posted by nosoop
Is there any way to contribute SourcePawn samples to Linguist while allowing their project to remain licensed under the MIT license?
|
If your samples use any of the SM headers, your work is derivative and you have to use the GPL. The headers were written by us and are GPL.
According to the FSF, plugins are derivative work (or combined, I forget which) if there's more communication between the plugin and parent than just starting the plugin. I would maybe guess that source code that doesn't use our headers wouldn't count as a plugin since it's not a binary.
I don't know if SP code without use of SM's headers is useful for Linguist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nosoop
Do I have the option of licensing my SourcePawn code as MIT, seeing as MIT-licensed files are compatible with the GNU GPL?
|
"Compatibility" is only a question of whether things can be combined. It doesn't mean you get to freely pick any of the original licenses. You can combine an MIT-licensed work with a GPL-licensed work, but the result will have to be GPL-licensed because you can't remove GPL's restrictions if you're not in total control of the GPL'd work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nosoop
If so, am I allowed to distribute binaries under the GNU GPL while still allowing the source files to be MIT-licensed? Are my licensing options restricted to a subset of code (e.g., ones that don't reference GPL-licensed include files)?
|
If your code is derivative of SM (e.g. if it uses our headers), you're restricted to following the GPL. If you had copyright control over the code, then you could use any licenses you wanted, even if incompatible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nosoop
At what point is code licensed under the GNU GPL?
|
If your work is derivative of SM's, always.