HI, > "something like this" you mean because of the license or because of the small > number of files?
Because of the license and it’s a small amount of code, it's regarded at Category A [1]. However do take care not to fork existing projects if possible. > If the latter, my question is always "what is big enough?”. If you wanted to change the license and their were a number of files then a SGA would be needed. If you are unsure what is big enough and have an example (not just a hypothetical) then ask on legal discuss. IMO this isn’t large enough to need that. > I understand that you can add an entry in NOTICE file, but then wouldn't we > just do that for every BSD file? It needs to be added to the LICENSE file not the NOTICE file. The NOTICE file doesn’t contain license information. see [2] > Having a clear guideline on what is required instead of desireable is > important, otherwise we tend to aggravate the problem by just adding more > files with BSD headers and get lost on how far or near we are to satisfy IP > clearance requirement. IP clearance is a little different to licensing, IP clearance is checking that you have everyone's permission and the licenses are correct and there’s no unexpected 3rd party code in your codebase. Sometime code can say it BSD on the cover but actually includes differently licensed code / other 3rd party code. Documenting what all the licenses are is a part of that. There are different ways of handling this you can a) make everything ALv2 via SGAs and ICLAs/CCLAs or b) include some 3rd party code shoes license is compatible with ALv2 and documented in LICENSE. But taking a step back, and this may be the more important question, is it BSD because it was part of the NuttX donation or is it BSD because it’s 3rd party code from somewhere else? Thanks, Justin 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a 2. https://infra.apache.org/licensing-howto.html#permissive
