On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 07:25:51PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
Oh, it said that the license choice was at my option. Sorry for that. Maybe the header should clarify whose option is meant, then.
I think we should make clear which license we assign to the code. Having
Sure, we already do that (well, in those files which _do_ have license headers, there are still quite a few which have none).
Some coreboot files are GPL2, some or GPL2-or-later, some are BSD, some may be other GPL-compatible licenses. The coreboot code as a whole is GPL2-only as a result, but everyone is free to take out individual GPL2-or-later files and re-use them in GPL3 projects (which is one of the reasons I use GPL2-or-later). Or take out a BSD-licensed file and use it in BSD licensed projects etc. That does not change the fact that coreboot as a whole is GPL2-only.
code in our tree which is licensed by anyone else's choice (i.e. not the authors of coreboot) is a legal concern. Since the complete project is v2 only, the headers should reflect this.
They already do, no reason for changes here. In addition, the README also states the coreboot license pretty clearly IMHO.
Besides, most Kconfig scripts (which we are talking about here) are trivial few-liners indeed.
Sure, not an issue in this case.
Uwe.