Update License for Roslyn compilers script GenerateSdkPackages to MIT

[janani66]

Version Used: .NET7 main branch

Steps to Reproduce:

1.See https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/blob/main/scripts/GenerateSdkPackages/base.nuspec#L9 -- this has the reference to http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=614949 which points to the MICROSOFT VISUAL STUDIO 2015 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT KIT License

(A sharplab repro is ideal for compiler/language issues whenever possible)

Expected Behavior: This should point to the MIT License

Actual Behavior: Points to https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/license-terms/mt171586/ which has the MICROSOFT VISUAL STUDIO 2015 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT KIT License.

[Youssef1313]

Is GenerateSdkPackages actually used? Maybe it could be deleted entirely.

[davidwengier]

I'll leave someone else to comment on whether it's needed, but I'm 99% sure the license is accurate. Certainly it shouldn't be MIT.

[omajid]

cc @crummel @lbussell @MichaelSimons

[leecow]

@jaredpar - this license is popping up in IBMs open source license scans. Can you help determine if it's correct?

Seems like the contents of /scripts isn't particularly interesting from a downstream source-build perspective. @crummel, do you know what RH does with this?

[jaredpar]

I'll leave someone else to comment on whether it's needed, but I'm 99% sure the license is accurate. Certainly it shouldn't be MIT.

This is correct. To the best of my recollection this is how we used to build SDK packages for inclusion in Visual Studio. Those do require the standard VS redist license which is used here.

Is GenerateSdkPackages actually used? Maybe it could be deleted entirely.

I think this can be deleted. It's not used anymore. At least I'm going to send a PR to delete this and see if anyone screams.

[janani66]

Deleting the GenerateSdkPackages if they are not used will resolve the licensing issue for us.