Correct License metadata

[LecrisUT]

Hi, while trying to package this project for Fedora, the question of the licensing of BIP39 came up. We have received confirmation that this is licensed under MIT¹, and thus the recommendation I have received² is that the License metadata should read MIT AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0), hence the PR.

Footnotes

1. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1395#issuecomment-2393930721 ↩

2. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297307 ↩

[maciejhirsz]

IANAL but wouldn't MIT OR (MIT AND Apache-2.0) be less redundant here?

[LecrisUT]

Yes, both are equivalent. This form comunicates the reason for the license, i.e. part of it is MIT only, part of it is dual licensed. It also helps when packaging the leaf binary because all licenses are ANDed together from the dependencies and in this form we can eliminate some duplicates more easily.

[maciejhirsz]

Published as 1.0.1.