> Quantify "messy" Having to add multiple headers in my code that reuses crypto.go specifically, rather than using the same header that I use when reusing ever

> Quantify "messy" Having to add multiple headers in my code that reuses crypto.go specifically, rather than using the same header that I use when reusing every other piece of code in the Go standard library. > People have been combining BSD and "other" stuff for decades. Yes, though not without practical implications, as described in the link I posted in my previous comment. > They just shipped it. The license says they can, and they did. They license says they can as long as they follow the terms of the license. If they do not include the correct header in all derivatives, they are no longer complying with the terms of the license. I am willing to bet that the vast majority of projects out there that use BSD-licensed code do not actually comply with the terms of the BSD license. They're usually small and the licensors don't notice (or care), so they get away with it. But that doesn't make it right for the licensees to do so, either ethically or legally, and they could easily find themselves in legal hot water if the original licensors wanted to make their lives difficult[0]. > (And FWIW: the fourth clause was considered bad because it put a restriction on how the software was distributed and communicated about. It was also considered bad because it was complicated to comply with in practice. From the page I linked in my previous comment: > When people put many such programs together in an operating system, the result is a serious problem. Imagine if a software system required 75 different sentences, each one naming a different author or group of authors. [0] And in this case, the "original licensor" in question would be Intel. If Intel wants to make your life difficult, they can make your life difficult.