On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 09:40:40AM +1100, Justin Mclean wrote:
> I think the LICENSE is still missing a number of things, do you look
> at my email when I went through the repos and listed what was
> contained in them? I know things have changed a little in
> tadpole/larval repos but everythink that is bundled needs to be
> accounted for. e.g. Baselibc for instance has several files in it that
> are licensed under other terms. [1]
OK, I believe I have removed the Apache license from all the
"otherwise-licensed" files, and added corresponding pointers to the
larva LICENSE file. Everything from your earlier email ("Larva content
review for license" sent on 2016-02-04) should now be accounted for. I
did see your note about checking the FatFS license, but larva does not
contain any FatFS files, so I did not make any mention of it in the
LICENSE file. Larva's LICENSE file has become quite a monster, I'm
afraid.
> If it helps I can go through and list out what I think they are missing.
>
> Also I thought we were removing anything with the "MCD-ST Liberty SW
> License”? (It’s not a comparable licence) See larval
> ./hw/mcu/stm/stm32f4xx/include/mcu/system_stm32f4xx.h
I have replaced this file with a more recent version from STM. The new
version has a BSD license.
There is one nagging issue, however. Larva includes some files from
CMSIS-CORE which lack any license information. In subsequent releases,
ARM added the BSD license text to these files. However, we have made
modifications to the original files, so incorporating newer versions of
these files into Larva won't be trivial. We will fix this issue, but I
am hoping we can take care of this between the first and second release.
In the meantime, I have added a note about this to the larva LICENSE
file.
If you could take another look at where we are, it would be much
appreciated. Once again, thanks for your unflagging patience!
Chris
