diff --git a/Licensing.md b/Licensing.md
index 100494c..494e533 100644
--- a/Licensing.md
+++ b/Licensing.md
@@ -10,4 +10,4 @@ Thoughts: the main reason to open-source is to invite and encourage enthusiasts
 
 Thoughts: This is a bit hard to envision, as it seems quite unlikely.  On the other hand GeoGebra has gone from basically a fully open-source community project to something that seems/feels much more commercial and closed. I'd be pretty bummed if some company created major new features/improvements that the open-source side would have to reimplement to distribute freely. To prevent such a thing, we'd basically need some version of the GPL or maybe the Mozilla Public License, is that right? I.e., what's known as a "copyleft", rather than just a "permissive" license? I think I've read that projects with permissive licenses, all else being equal, tend to get more interest/activity, because people just don't need to worry much about those licenses? Does that seem right/plausible?
 
-Here is one [guide to licenses]( https://choosealicense.com/licenses/), that seems to concur with the above musings. Reading it, the leading candidates seem to be either the Mozilla Public License or the Apache License -- those seem to be at the boundary contemplated above.
\ No newline at end of file
+Here is one [guide to licenses]( https://choosealicense.com/licenses/), that seems to concur with the above musings. Reading it, the leading candidates seem to be either the Mozilla Public License or the Apache License -- those seem to be at the boundary contemplated above. And I'm not aware of any reason to use a license other than the half-dozen or so listed in that guide.
\ No newline at end of file