Hi, On 4/20/20 10:46 AM, Roland Hieber wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 10:33:08PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >> While at it also drop references to the non-existing CREDITS file. >> >> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Hello, >> >> there is one file (2048.c) that specifies the MIT license. I wonder if >> we should use "GPL-2.0 OR MIT" there as effectively as distributed with >> barebox it is licensed under the GPL 2, isn't it? > > I would stay as close to the source as possible. MIT and GPL-2.0 are > compatible, so there is no problem on the project level, and I see no > reason to handle this on the level of individual files. We need a copy of the MIT license in LICENSES/ though, before we reference it. Thinking about it, we already reference MIT (and X11) in the dts/ directory. So both should be added. Cheers, -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
