Dear Gary,
In message 001f01cec2e5$9f1d9b20$dd58d160$@com you wrote:
The AND situation would occur if you have a file which contains code from
two or more different sources using two or more different licenses. In that
case, I believe you would need to satisfy the obligations of all
Gisi, Mark twisted the bytes to say:
SPDX-License-Notice: This file is licensed under the following
license(s):
SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
SPDX-License-More-Information: http://wiki.spdx.org/
Mark One aspect of SPDX we struggle with is its relatively weak
Mark support for
Dear Daniel,
In message 87ob71qey8@mn.cs.uvic.ca you wrote:
Wolfgang Also, in the interest of easy processing of the license tags, I
wouls
Wolfgang like to propse that multiple licenses in a list are separated by
white
Wolfgang space only - no OR, no commas, nor any other
Dear Gary,
In message 002f01cec378$2f2a3470$8d7e9d50$@com you wrote:
If there is no conflict in license terms, however, I do not see an issue
in using this approach. I run across a large volume of MIT style and BSD
style licenses mixed in with GPL code, for example. Using AND'd
licenses is
Wolfgang Denk [mailto:w...@denx.de]:
But this example doesn't work either. If you mix a license that allows
modify and keep the modified code closed with GPL, the only legally
possible result is GPLed code.
I see little value in constructing such more or less artificial examples.
This is
Dear David,
In message 9f8e44bc27e22046b84ec1b9364c66a1a8054ab...@exch07-4850.ida.org you
wrote:
Note this comment:
# Except as otherwise marked, this code is licensed under the MIT license.
# However, the override code that patches clisp is derived
# from clisp, which is GPLv2.
# Thus
Wolfgang Denk [mailto:w...@denx.de]
But there there is no actual choice. Yes, you take the parts of the project
that do not include the GPL code - and you can use this code under the MIT
license for other purposes. But as soon as we talk about the thing as a
whole (say, the linked
