l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Congratulations, indeed. :-) > > The intent for the ‘license’ field is mostly to describe the license of > the combined work (although apparently the intent was not crystal > clear.) > > In this case, I believe lgpl2.0+ “wins” over the other, more permissive > licenses. So I would just list lgpl2.0+ (sorry about that ;-)). > > However it’s good to keep a note like the one you wrote above the > ‘license’ field. Perhaps you could just s/many different licenses/many > different, non-copyleft licenses/ ? > > OK to push with a change along these lines. > > Thank you! > > Ludo’.
Understood, thanks for the explanation. :-) Taylan
