On 26 April 2016 at 14:29, Burton, Ross <ross.bur...@intel.com> wrote: > > On 26 April 2016 at 01:44, Robert Yang <liezhi.y...@windriver.com> wrote: >> >> Thanks, did you mean the following text ? I can't find MIT license there. >> >> /* >> * Copyright © 2001 Red Hat, Inc >> * > > > Yes, this one. I've just had a chat with Beth and we both agree that it's > practically MIT, even if it's not worded traditionally. My personal belief > is that this license is Red Hat's legal department's wording of MIT. > Pointing it at the MIT license is acceptable, but preferable would be adding > a new "RedHat-MIT" license to common-licenses and using that. >
Yes, this is MIT enough that, in that, it doesn't really add any restrictions to MIT that looking at it again I think leaving it MIT is enough. > Ross > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > -- Elizabeth Flanagan Yocto Project Build and Release -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
