<story><title>revng translates (i386, x86-64, MIPS, ARM, AArch64, s390x) binaries to LLVM IR</title><url>https://github.com/revng/revng</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Someone</author><text>License is weird and unclear to me. &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;revng&amp;#x2F;revng&amp;#x2F;blob&amp;#x2F;develop&amp;#x2F;LICENSE.md&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;revng&amp;#x2F;revng&amp;#x2F;blob&amp;#x2F;develop&amp;#x2F;LICENSE.md&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;“Licensing information&lt;p&gt;Copyright (c) 2015-2017 Alessandro Di Federico &amp;lt;ale@clearmind.me&amp;gt;&lt;p&gt;Copyright (c) 2017-2020 rev.ng Labs Srl &amp;lt;info@rev.ng&amp;gt;&lt;p&gt;The project as a whole is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2. A copy of this license can be found in LICENSE.gpl.&lt;p&gt;Each individual file, unless otherwise noted, is released under the terms of the MIT License. A copy of this license can be found in LICENSE.mit.”&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does that paragraph about GPLv2 constitute a version of “unless otherwise noted”?&lt;p&gt;If so, why mention the MIT license at all?&lt;p&gt;If not, doesn’t that mean it effectively is dual licensed? If everything is GPLv2, and I take a single file, that’s still GPLv2, and if if have set of MIT licensed files and group them, the result still is MIT licensed.&lt;p&gt;(Browsing the code, all source files seem to have a MIT header, so, presumably, they mean this to beMIT licensed)&lt;p&gt;Also, it’s not “GPLv2 or later”, but I think you can take the MIT licensed files and rerelease them as GPLv3, if you’d want to (or is the attribution requirement a showstopper there?)</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>edef</author><text>The qemu TCG parts that it presumably links to are GPLv2, so the combined project is GPLv2 by necessity[1]. I think that&amp;#x27;s all they&amp;#x27;re trying to get across.&lt;p&gt;[1]: apart from viral licenses being pretty much meaningless under EU copyright law</text></comment>
<story><title>revng translates (i386, x86-64, MIPS, ARM, AArch64, s390x) binaries to LLVM IR</title><url>https://github.com/revng/revng</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Someone</author><text>License is weird and unclear to me. &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;revng&amp;#x2F;revng&amp;#x2F;blob&amp;#x2F;develop&amp;#x2F;LICENSE.md&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;revng&amp;#x2F;revng&amp;#x2F;blob&amp;#x2F;develop&amp;#x2F;LICENSE.md&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;“Licensing information&lt;p&gt;Copyright (c) 2015-2017 Alessandro Di Federico &amp;lt;ale@clearmind.me&amp;gt;&lt;p&gt;Copyright (c) 2017-2020 rev.ng Labs Srl &amp;lt;info@rev.ng&amp;gt;&lt;p&gt;The project as a whole is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2. A copy of this license can be found in LICENSE.gpl.&lt;p&gt;Each individual file, unless otherwise noted, is released under the terms of the MIT License. A copy of this license can be found in LICENSE.mit.”&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does that paragraph about GPLv2 constitute a version of “unless otherwise noted”?&lt;p&gt;If so, why mention the MIT license at all?&lt;p&gt;If not, doesn’t that mean it effectively is dual licensed? If everything is GPLv2, and I take a single file, that’s still GPLv2, and if if have set of MIT licensed files and group them, the result still is MIT licensed.&lt;p&gt;(Browsing the code, all source files seem to have a MIT header, so, presumably, they mean this to beMIT licensed)&lt;p&gt;Also, it’s not “GPLv2 or later”, but I think you can take the MIT licensed files and rerelease them as GPLv3, if you’d want to (or is the attribution requirement a showstopper there?)</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Brian_K_White</author><text>If you have a set of MIT files, and group them, the group is whatever you want it to be.&lt;p&gt;It just means someone else can take all the files and make something else with them, but they just can&amp;#x27;t redistribute the new project under the name revng, unless it conforms to gpl2.</text></comment>