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).
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?