On 22 Mar 2006, at 11:32, David Schwartz wrote: >> I thought GPLv2 would be implicit. I'll add the short GPL stanza to >> each of the offending source files. > > It seems rather illogical to me to add a GPL stanza. The GPL adds new > rights and imposes requirements on you only if you could get those > rights no > other way. Since there is another way, the alternative license, the GPL > requirements would never kick in. Although, as far as I can tell, it > doesn't > change or harm anything. Yes, that's the same logic I applied. I think it is redundant, but I think it makes sense to add a sentence to the effect that the file is GPL if you want it to be, just to avoid any fears or complaints, and to show that we really aren't trying to do anything fishy. And IANAL so I'll err on the side of caution and redundancy. :-) -- Keir
