Rename license files to standardised names

[moritztim]

Summary of all my comments:
Saving the licenses in files named MIT and APACHE2.0¹ (which is not a valid identifier anyway) prevents tools like VSCode and GitHub (see GitHub docs) as well as users to recognize them as a license file at a glance. The convention is to name them LICENSE, or in the case of multiple files, LICENSE-<name>². There's also a standardized notation for the case of choice between multiple licenses.³

Footnotes

1. See https://github.com/rp-rs/rp2040-project-template/pull/89#issuecomment-2471463168 ↩

2. See https://github.com/rp-rs/rp2040-project-template/pull/89/commits/08978253530ed005f7890dc60551f8d5c6e5a712 ↩

3. See https://github.com/rp-rs/rp2040-project-template/pull/89#issuecomment-2471480496 ↩

[moritztim]

I just realised that this is licensed under both the MIT and the Apache 2.0 license... I guess this complicates things a bit. Maybe there should be a third file LICENSE with the license that the actual code here is under, as opposed to the possible licenses that could be chosen for any projects using this template.

[moritztim]

According to the SPDX specification on composite license expressions you just have to put an "OR" keyword between the license options.

[moritztim]

The "License" tab shows up with this change. Unfortunately, it doesn't show both licenses in full.

[moritztim]

This almost works. Unfortunately GitHub doesn't recognize the apache license because it has another dot in its name.

[moritztim]

Now it's getting correctly displayed by GitHub.

You might not want to have a third LICENSE file with the standardized expression, since it might be confusing to have three files.

Sorry for the back and forth, it's probably best to squash this.

[jannic]

The README.md refers to these files as well. ("See MIT or APACHE2.0 for more information on each specific licence.")
That should probably be updated to point to the renamed files.

[moritztim]

Right, I'll do that

[9names]

FYI our main repo uses the same licences and GitHub detects them correctly.
We should have it done consistently.
https://github.com/rp-rs/rp-hal

[moritztim]

FYI our main repo uses the same licences and GitHub detects them correctly. We should have it done consistently. rp-rs/rp-hal

Yeah, since the readme mentions the dual license with a proper OR clause, I think the LICENSE file might not be needed. I'll remove it and the reference to it if you want.