Wolfgang Denk [mailto:wd@...]

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