Apache License 2.0 all right for BSP code?

[Karel Gardas]

On 3/10/22 16:24, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> "(b) You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices 
>> stating that You changed the files;"
>>
>> This means everyone changing the files need to pay attention to this.
> 
> If the Apache 2.0 files don't have an SPDX license identifier, then I 
> think this should be added and a standard text which states that the 
> file was modified to add the SPDX license identifier. Having to look at 
> a random LICENSE file in the tree to figure this out is not contributor 
> friendly. There should be a text in the RTEMS Software Engineering 
> manual about how to work with Apache 2.0 files in RTEMS.

First of all, the Apache 2.0 files comes from STM32CubeH7 project and in 
majority of cases (if not all!) they should not be edited in RTEMS. 
That's also the reason why I have not modified them and added any SPDX 
license identifier into them. They should be left intact and in future 
just replaced with another version of the files as provided by STMicro.

So they definitely do not need to be contributor friendly. Any 
contributor to those files should contribute to upstream project(s) 
which are well listed in provided LICENSE file.

The LICENSE file itself is provided since the comment on any of HAL 
files points to it by:

   * This software is licensed under terms that can be found in the 
LICENSE file
   * in the root directory of this software component.

so there was a need to provide such file.

Hope that clears the intention behind this.

Karel