On Tue, Jun 28, 2022, 19:39 Tim Newsome <t...@sifive.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 1:12 PM Antonio Borneo <borneo.anto...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > What does the text in the file need to say to be acceptable to OpenOCD? >> I can see about getting it changed. >> >> It should report a license compatible with GPLv2. >> Either GPLv2, BSD in any flavor, MIT. >> O dual licensing, like "CC-BY-4.0 OR BSD-3-Clause" >> > > I'm looking into that. Thanks for giving some examples that would work. >
The list is quite long, and I'm aware of all the possible variations. Let's see what you can get... > > This file comes from https://github.com/riscv/riscv-opcodes. The >> LICENSE in question looks a bit painful as well. I'll see about including >> the license directly in that header file as a string, so it's present in >> the source and could be displayed in a binary. >> >> The best option would be to have directly the standard SPDX tag in the >> first line, but it's also ok having just a line reporting under which >> license this file can be used. >> > > That license doesn't seem to be exactly a BSD-3-Clause. I'm not a lawyer > so I don't want to say the two licenses are equivalent, which I think means > we have to distribute the license verbatim. > There is an interesting list here https://spdx.org/licenses/ They also have an online tool to check the matching license text, but not really well working. I have downloaded from their git the repo with all the licences in txt format and then grep in. It helped me to find some exotic BSD variant and GPL exceptions. If you prefer, just copy paste here the licence text, I can try to find it. Not a lawyer either... Antonio >
