This is why I recommend that if you copy an entire directory of code you
include the LICENSE file for that directory; if you copy a single file,
make the license clear at the comment in a top of the file. This is
standard practice in most open source communities.
If you’re writing open source
You are addressing interpretation of "a license", while my concern is not with
the licenses themselves but with the identification of which code goes with
which license. Assuming that you will need to retain lawyers to decide how to
handle a license in a particular use case may be reasonable,
On 3 October 2020 at 09:54, Hadley Wickham wrote:
| I think this is a bit of an oversimplification, especially given that
| "compatibility" is not symmetric. For example, you can include MIT license
| code in a GPL licensed package; you can not include GPL licensed code
| inside an MIT licensed
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 5:26 PM Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> On 2 October 2020 at 14:44, Jeff Newmiller wrote:
> | if you want clarity in the minds of _users_ I would beg you to split the
> code into two packages. People will likely either be afraid of the GPL
> bogey man and refrain from
