On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 9:48 PM Tim Newsome <t...@sifive.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 3:09 PM Antonio Borneo <borneo.anto...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Definitively odd! The top part matches the initial part of >> https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-Clear.html >> then the rest matches the last part of >> https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT-Modern-Variant.html > > > Oh, nice find. > >> >> An hybrid! Don't know how to consider it >> Do you have the possibility to ask the original authors? > > > I could ask Andrew who made the change in github, but probably all that gets > us is where he cut and pasted it from. Since the copyright is assigned to The > Regents of the University of California presumably only they can change the > license, which sounds like a big bureaucracy at best. Seems easier just to > include the license in the OpenOCD source and binary. I've opened a PR at > https://github.com/riscv/riscv-opcodes/pull/131 to help with that.
AAAn investigation on where it comes from could still be useful. Hopefully it's just a wrong copy-paste that can be amended. The SPDX tags are assigned by spdx.org, so if you have to stick to this license, it's better proposing spdx.org to record it and assign a tag. They have a link/process on their web Anyway, good to know this is 50% BSD and 50% MIT. As both are compatible with GPL, also this hybrid "should" be compatible. Until we get blessed by spdx.org, I think we can simply copy-paste the license in the file itself. More complex instead with CC-BY-4.0 on the other file. I hope we can get a solution before mid September to properly tag OpenOCD 0.12.0-rc1 Antonio
