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 binary), then you do not have any choice, then it's > GPL. GPL without any ORs or ANDs.
Ah, but these are not linked binaries. These are scripts, and it's trivial to remove one of the scripts & the rest of the software is straight-up MIT. Even for the MIT+GPLv2 script, it's trivial to remove a certain set of lines to make it MIT-only. Also: We agree that the effect of "MIT AND GPLv2", legally, is just "GPLv2"... but some other license combinations do not simplify so easily. Anyway, I think it's important to be able to express more complex situations than "this file has license X". In many cases, a file has multiple licenses, not one license; being able to express that situation is very helpful. -- David A. Wheeler _______________________________________________ Spdx-tech mailing list Spdx-tech@lists.spdx.org https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-tech
