> Without a CLA, that's not doable without the approval of all the contributors.
Three things:
- libogc is BSD 3-clause[1], which is GPL-compatible[2][3]. That means that while you can't just strip off the existing BSD license, you can distribute a combination of source code that is BSD and GPL licensed, it just has to be distributed under the terms of the GPL, which is fully compatible with the terms of a BSD license, too, since all BSD licenses require is maintaining the copyright notice/disclaimer, and nothing about that requirement conflicts with the GPL. (IANAL, so take with a grain of salt, but I'm pretty positive on this one.)
- Although RTEMS is traditionally GPL, it's actually a modified version of GPL with the GNAT exception[4]. A compiler exception effectively allows users to link the object files into software of any license without invoking the copyleft provisions, so to my understanding this would basically be identical except for people who are modifying the source code of libogc (I imagine this is exceedingly rare.)
- And finally, RTEMS has been re-licensing to BSD 2-clause for a long time[5], so it's very possible all of the relevant code is now available under a BSD license with effectively equivalent permissiveness.
So actually I think this situation is probably much a nothingburger in that regard...
Three things:
- libogc is BSD 3-clause[1], which is GPL-compatible[2][3]. That means that while you can't just strip off the existing BSD license, you can distribute a combination of source code that is BSD and GPL licensed, it just has to be distributed under the terms of the GPL, which is fully compatible with the terms of a BSD license, too, since all BSD licenses require is maintaining the copyright notice/disclaimer, and nothing about that requirement conflicts with the GPL. (IANAL, so take with a grain of salt, but I'm pretty positive on this one.)
- Although RTEMS is traditionally GPL, it's actually a modified version of GPL with the GNAT exception[4]. A compiler exception effectively allows users to link the object files into software of any license without invoking the copyleft provisions, so to my understanding this would basically be identical except for people who are modifying the source code of libogc (I imagine this is exceedingly rare.)
- And finally, RTEMS has been re-licensing to BSD 2-clause for a long time[5], so it's very possible all of the relevant code is now available under a BSD license with effectively equivalent permissiveness.
So actually I think this situation is probably much a nothingburger in that regard...
[1]: https://github.com/devkitPro/libogc/blob/master/libogc_licen...
[2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ModifiedBS...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility
[4]: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/blob/main/LICENS...
[5]: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/blob/main/LICENS...