License question

[Philip Prindeville]

> On Mar 22, 2026, at 3:07 PM, Benjamin Larsson via openwrt-devel <openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org> wrote:
> 
> The sender domain has a DMARC Reject/Quarantine policy which disallows
> sending mailing list messages using the original "From" header.
> 
> To mitigate this problem, the original message has been wrapped
> automatically by the mailing list software.
> From: Benjamin Larsson <benjamin.larsson at genexis.eu>
> Subject: Re: License question
> Date: March 22, 2026 at 3:07:27 PM MDT
> To: openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
> 
> 
> On 22/03/2026 21:43, Philip Prindeville via openwrt-devel wrote:
>> What license does this correspond to ?
>> 
>> https://github.com/kmilo17pet/quectel-cm/blob/main/NOTICE
>> 
> Well I would say that this NOTICE describes the legal framework covering the source code.
> 
> If you are a customer of the Quectel company you have some permissions and if you are not you have others.
> 
> Per my interpretation the github repo owner must be the tool author or a customer of the Quectel company to be able to legally distribute the source code.
> 
> Using the code is not covered in the notice but would probably be derived from common law. (If you include a Quectel part in your product your customer must be able to run the Manager Tool even though they are not a customer of the Quectel company directly.)
> 
> 
> And to answer your question this license does not correspond to anything but itself.
> 
> 
> MvH
> 
> Benjamin Larsson
> 


That's what I thought.  So what does one put as the license type when it doesn't match a known prototype?