On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 1:46 PM Antonio Borneo <borneo.anto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > Looks like we'll be able to switch it to BSD-3-Clause-Clear. https://github.com/riscv/riscv-opcodes/pull/133 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 > Yes. I've been emailing with Stephano Cetola of the RISC-V Foundation about this. He's digging into what it would take to use a GPLv2 compatible license. Tim
