"Johann C. Rocholl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How about this here construct? > > #!/usr/bin/env python > # png.py - PNG encoder in pure Python > # Copyright (C) 2006 Johann C. Rocholl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > # > # This file is licensed alternatively under one of the following: > # 1. GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), Version 2.1 or newer > # 2. GNU General Public License (GPL), Version 2 or newer > # 3. Apache License, Version 2.0 or newer > # 4. The following license (aka MIT License)
Pointless. Licensing it under the Expat license (what you're calling "MIT License", but we've already discussed the ambiguities in that term) allows all the rights granted in all the other license you name, plus just about anything else. Hence, there's no point listing the others if you are also happy for people to have it under the Expat license. On the other hand, if you want to be more restrictive than the terms of the Expat license, you need to choose a different license. Simplify. Please don't attempt to write yet another set of license terms without expert legal assistance. You've already chosen the Expat license as being acceptable; use that, and you grant all the rest without even mentioning it. -- \ "[On the Internet,] power and control will shift to those who | `\ are actually contributing something useful rather than just | _o__) having lunch." -- Douglas Adams | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
