edtlib: tests: relicense various YAML sample files

[dottspina]

Relicense to Apache-2.0 the YAML test files introduced by commit ee5c520.

I didn't touch the test files I' not the author of. @mbolivar may know why the BSD-3-clause was chosen for these the other files at this time, and whether relicensing them is possible.

References:

• edtlib: tests: refine coverage of Binding objects initialization #79900
• doc: LICENSING: Add BSD-3-clause for python-devicetree test files #86577

[fabiobaltieri]

Cool, can you also drop the note that I added in #86577 while at it?

[dottspina]

Cool, can you also drop the note that I added in #86577 while at it?

I only re-licensed the files I authored, there are still quite a few YAML files (and some DTS) under the BSD-3-clause license in the scripts/dts/python-devicetree/tests directory the note is about.

Should I also fix the files that are still under BSD-3-clause (may be in a different commit to make it clear)?
Or simply drop the note anyway?

[fabiobaltieri]

Oh I see that now, yeah let's just do this then, thanks for clarifying.

[mbolivar]

Why this PR?

The python-devicetree package source files are BSD 3 clause and have been since the beginning when @ulfalizer first wrote them. I don't think mixing licenses like this makes sense -- test cases should ideally be licensed identically to the code being tested, to avoid potential contamination if you migrate code between implementation and test -- and the PR is not providing a justification.

[fabiobaltieri]

Why this PR?

I asked for it because I noticed a bunch of files introduced under a non Apache license in this cycle, one of the step of the release is to make sure the license page is up to date. Did not realize that there were existing files with that license though, mainly because there was not an entry in the license file, which there is now so I guess this is not strictly needed anymore since it's not changing all the files and we have to keep that entry anyway.

[decsny]

I think I am agreeing with marti here, the python devicetree scripts are pretty much all BSD-3 license so do not think this is a big deal. And maybe he is right that it is better to keep consistent with test yamls, IDK though, I lack experience there. To me it seems silly to have licenses and copyrights on configuration files in the first place but what do I know

[mbolivar]

Thanks for the explanation @fabiobaltieri -- should we close this, then?

[fabiobaltieri]

Thanks for the explanation @fabiobaltieri -- should we close this, then?

Yeah fine by me, apologies for the extra work @dottspina, at least this now has a reference should not create any more ambiguity.