Dear David, In message <[email protected]> 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 consider the work as a whole as "MIT and GPLv2".
IANAL, but from t strictly legal point of view "the work as a whole" is definitly GPLv2. You cannot release it under MIT terms (i. e. without offering the source code). > I agree with you that, from a *legal* standpoint, if you accept the > WHOLE file you end up with just the GPLv2 requirements. But knowing ACK. > that there's a variance matters; it's quite possible to extract a > part and end up with just the MIT portions. As a developer I think you should avoid to mix such code in a single source file. Instead, you should split it into files with clear license terms for each of them. Otherwise you will end up with an inextricable mess. > This one file is part of a larger system that is mostly MIT, but > has this one GPLv2 file. Claiming it's just "GPLv2" would be very > misleading. Being able to report the options, collected with AND and > OR, is very helpful. 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 binary), then you do not have any choice, then it's GPL. GPL without any ORs or ANDs. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: [email protected] "Though a program be but three lines long, someday it will have to be maintained." - The Tao of Programming _______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
