Add the MIT license

[otavio]

The layer has no license file. GitHub reports no license for it, so
default copyright applies and nobody may legally reuse it. This layer
is registered in the OpenEmbedded layer index on 23 branches and is
published for others to build on, so the current state blocks exactly the
use it invites.

This adds the MIT license, matching OSSystems/nix-actions. MIT was
chosen because it is what meta-freescale and most OpenEmbedded layers
use, so it causes the least friction downstream. The copyright range runs
from the first commit in this repository (2013) to the current year.

One point that needs a maintainer decision

This layer also ships conf/licenses/OSSCL-1.0, the "O.S. Systems
Commercial License version 1.0", wired in through LICENSE_PATH. The two
do not conflict as they stand, because they cover different things:

• The MIT license added here covers this layer's own metadata — the
  recipes, classes and configuration files in this repository.
• OSSCL-1.0 is a license text made available for other recipes to
  reference through LICENSE_PATH. No public recipe in this layer
  declares it.

Please confirm that reading before merging. If any file in this repository
is in fact meant to be under OSSCL-1.0 rather than MIT, say so and this
pull request needs a carve-out rather than a blanket license.

Found while auditing the public record of the company repositories.

[otavio]

Answered by the maintainer, 2026-08-14, and verified against the tree.

OSSCL-1.0 needs no carve-out. This pull request can merge as it stands.

The reason the layer carries the text: some customers ship private code that cannot be
distributed, and a few of them use this commercial license. That code lives in customer layers, not
here. This layer publishes the license text so that a recipe in one of those layers can declare
LICENSE = "OSSCL-1.0" and have the build resolve it.

Verified on the branch head:

• conf/layer.conf:17 does LICENSE_PATH += "${LAYERDIR}/conf/licenses", which is the generic
  wiring that exports the directory. It does not apply the license to anything in this layer.
• None of the 33 recipes and bbappends in this layer declares OSSCL-1.0 as its LICENSE.
• No file content in the repository references OSSCL at all, other than the license text itself.

So the two cover different things and do not overlap:

• The MIT license added here covers this layer's own metadata — its recipes, classes and
  configuration.
• OSSCL-1.0 stays a reference text for recipes in other layers.