Hi, Maxime Devos <[email protected]> writes:
[...] > However, keep in mind that sometimes a file is part licensed as, say, > BSD(*), part as Expat, with modifications under the GPL -- to me it > appears that for practical purposes you could consider such a thing to > be 'effectively GPL', but that's not 100% accurate, as it appears > required to preserve the BSD and Expat license text. (Such things can > happen when incorporating code from other, differently-licensed, > projects). My personal take on this is that I find little value in listing 50 lesser licenses in the license fields if the effective license of the whole built project would require to be GPL, say. In that case I would find it sufficient to say the program is gpl3+, say, with a comment mentioning there are other non-copyleft licenses involved but that the GPL license wins. In my view that is more useful and tidy. Thanks, Maxim
