Interesting initiative and the description in the README is promising. However, I think the developer is messing with the license. A cursory look tells me he wants to preserve original AntennaPod’s GPLv3 license while licensing his modifications and additions as MIT, which is incongruent. I am not a lawyer but as far as I can tell, once a piece of code is GPLv3, all its next iterations must respect such license to the letter, that is, keep it under GPLv3.
Installed it and in the settings you can see the following message at the bottom of the settings.
Anyone willing to open an issue in both Antenna’s and Podcini’s repositories? I am mobile, can’t at the moment.
Thanks for sharing!
Edit: created a quick issue in the repository, feel free to chime in, follow along.
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.
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?
Interesting initiative and the description in the README is promising. However, I think the developer is messing with the license. A cursory look tells me he wants to preserve original AntennaPod’s GPLv3 license while licensing his modifications and additions as MIT, which is incongruent. I am not a lawyer but as far as I can tell, once a piece of code is GPLv3, all its next iterations must respect such license to the letter, that is, keep it under GPLv3.
Installed it and in the settings you can see the following message at the bottom of the settings.
Anyone willing to open an issue in both Antenna’s and Podcini’s repositories? I am mobile, can’t at the moment.
Thanks for sharing!
Edit: created a quick issue in the repository, feel free to chime in, follow along.
deleted by creator
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?
In all likelihood it will never, ever matter for this project