nesC License clarification

[Shakthi Kannan]

Hi,

Need clarification on the License to be used for nesC [1] spec file:

The compiler is provided under GPLv2. But, the Java classes that
provide support for reading nesC's XML output are Copyright (c)
2004-2006 Intel Corporation. These were released under the Intel Open
Source License (now deprecated) [2]. In the latest CVS tree, it has
been updated:

http://nescc.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/nescc/nesc/COPYRIGHT?revision=1.3&am...

22 The Java classes that provide support for reading nesC's XML output are
23 	Copyright (c) 2004-2006 Intel Corporation
24 	
25 	These files are provided under a dual BSD/GPLv2 license. When using or
26 	redistributing these files, you may do so under either license.
27

So, should I use "GPLv2 and GPLv2/BSD" in the License section of the .spec file?

Appreciate your inputs,

Thanks!

SK

[1] nesC. http://nescc.sourceforge.net/

[2] Bad licenses. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Bad_Licenses

[Tom Callaway]

On 07/05/2010 06:25 AM, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Need clarification on the License to be used for nesC [1] spec file:
>
> The compiler is provided under GPLv2. But, the Java classes that
> provide support for reading nesC's XML output are Copyright (c)
> 2004-2006 Intel Corporation. These were released under the Intel Open
> Source License (now deprecated) [2]. In the latest CVS tree, it has
> been updated:
>
> http://nescc.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/nescc/nesc/COPYRIGHT?revision=1.3&am...
>
> 22 The Java classes that provide support for reading nesC's XML output are
> 23 	Copyright (c) 2004-2006 Intel Corporation
> 24 	
> 25 	These files are provided under a dual BSD/GPLv2 license. When using or
> 26 	redistributing these files, you may do so under either license.
> 27
>
> So, should I use "GPLv2 and GPLv2/BSD" in the License section of the .spec file?

This would be the most correct License tag:

License: GPLv2 and (GPLv2 or BSD)

~spot