New answers tagged

1

I suggest you add the MIT license in that directory and in addition add proper SPDX identifiers in each of the files in order to create an unambiguous situation.


1

This is a bit tricky, I would like to offer a few approaches. I am assuming that you can ship the synthesized code freely, and your question only relates to sharing the source. a) Whenever you distribute the part of the code which includes this Terasic code, you should always include the permission and disclaimer language. You should keep the Terasic code ...


2

Whenever you form and distribute a derivative of a GPL work, you must license that new derivative, as a whole, under the GPL. Your code, in isolation, can be under the MIT license, but when it is combined and distributed with GPL-licensed code, that combination (probably) forms a derivative work which must be licensed as a whole under the GPL. Note that the ...


0

The general consensus is the Stack Overflow answer you have linked to is incorrect; linking to a library creates a derivative work and therefore the GPL applies to the combined work. You can see some arguments in favour of this view here. Unsurprisingly, this is also the view of the FSF. For the opposing view, see this question.


2

Effectively yes, although I suggest you are much more explicit about exactly which material you intend to place under each license than just throwing some license files in some directories. In particular, there is no real concept of an "MPL 2.0 repository" - copyright (and thus open source licensing) exists at a more granular level than that of a ...


Top 50 recent answers are included