[Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Aug 8, 2016, at 3:10 PM, João Valverde <joao.valverde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Mainly what I was trying to say is that this dual licensing distinction can already be handled with path-specific exceptions so I guess I'm indifferent to adding more code for this.

I view path-specific exceptions as workarounds for deficiencies in licensecheck, and would prefer to have as few path-specific exceptions as possible.  Ideally, the only places where path-specific exceptions would be used would be places where licensecheck would need AI rather than pattern matching to identify the license. :-)