Re: Clarify the license field of the package

[Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com>]

Hi,

Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> 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