On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 07:25:51PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > Oh, it said that the license choice was at my option. Sorry for that. > Maybe the header should clarify whose option is meant, then. > > I think we should make clear which license we assign to the code. Having
Sure, we already do that (well, in those files which _do_ have license headers, there are still quite a few which have none). Some coreboot files are GPL2, some or GPL2-or-later, some are BSD, some may be other GPL-compatible licenses. The coreboot code as a whole is GPL2-only as a result, but everyone is free to take out individual GPL2-or-later files and re-use them in GPL3 projects (which is one of the reasons I use GPL2-or-later). Or take out a BSD-licensed file and use it in BSD licensed projects etc. That does not change the fact that coreboot as a whole is GPL2-only. > code in our tree which is licensed by anyone else's choice (i.e. not the > authors of coreboot) is a legal concern. Since the complete project is > v2 only, the headers should reflect this. They already do, no reason for changes here. In addition, the README also states the coreboot license pretty clearly IMHO. > Besides, most Kconfig scripts (which we are talking about here) are > trivial few-liners indeed. Sure, not an issue in this case. Uwe. -- http://hermann-uwe.de | http://sigrok.org http://randomprojects.org | http://unmaintained-free-software.org -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
