No license file about hammer HOT 5 CLOSED

What license would you like?

From my understanding of how this works, everything I release here has to pass through the BSD license at some point, but since that's such a permissive license I can pretty much do whatever I want. I usually re-license software under the LGPL, but I was thinking of just leaving all this stuff as BSD because hardware people are scared of the GPL.

from hammer.

As you say, I'd imagine BSD would get the widest possible audience. It would also make it easier for hardware projects which are already using a permissive license to import the system either in whole or in part to their source tree, without worrying about complicating the licensing situation.

from hammer.

Ya, I was kind of figuring the GPL would be a bad idea here. What do you think about this one: http://choosealicense.com/licenses/bsd-2-clause/ ? I'm assuming fewer clauses are better.

from hammer.

2-clause or 3-clause BSD, or indeed the MIT license are pretty much functionally identical. I don't know what the rules you have on open-sourcing things at Berkeley (e.g. if you are the copyright holder here, or if UCB has a claim). 2-clause BSD is nice and easy, I suppose an argument could be made for favouring consistency with the 3-clause BSD used by rocket, spike, Chisel etc.

from hammer.

I'm going with consistency. 710cd8f

from hammer.