Closed alvinhochun closed 3 years ago
Isn't it applicable to the source code only, not to the compilation artifacts ?
Isn't it applicable to the source code only, not to the compilation artifacts ?
I am not a lawyer, but general consensus is that the binaries compiled from source are considered "copies of the software".
And when it comes to GPL, there is no question that the compiled binaries are derivative work of the source code.
I'm happy for this to be done; at the moment github is not charging for the size / storage of the artefacts so im not worried by this. If anyway wants to make a PR to automatically put these in the exports I would love it; if not I can "soon".
It looks like there are some other dependencies that uses the Apache 2.0 license, like the NMSIS code and the FUSB302 driver, so need to keep note of them too.
And then there are odd ones that I don't know how to deal with, like:
Also, please let me know if I've missed any other dependencies.
This is a [
Bug/Feature Request/Question/Complaint]I have
This is not a bug in the vendor bootloader (aka DFU)(not applicable)I have checked this is not already covered in the docs in(not applicable)/Documentation
What is the current behavior?
(not applicable)
(not applicable)
Steps to reproduce the bug:
(not applicable)
The copyright notices are needed to comply with the software licences.
I think putting them in a text file inside the release ZIP archives should be sufficient. This should also apply to the GitHub Action artifacts.
(not applicable)