Hi,
I found some references about other licenses, but not much about this MCD-ST license,
The problem here is `only for use within the Product'. In the licence
agreement restricts a `Product' to be one where the `Licensed
Software' executes only on ST's chips.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2015/04/msg00023.html
AFAIK, the typical GPL variants apply only to your work "as a whole", and the MIT license is "compatible" with GPL. That means, if parts of your program are under MIT license, that is fine, as long as you do obey to the terms of the MIT license for that part (which is what you have in mind). And the only requirement that license states is
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/316393/what-to-do-when-using-mit-licensed-code-in-a-gpl-licensed-project
The GPL Licenses. The GPL has name recognition. Developers like it out of a sense of fairness (“I open sourced my code so you should too�?). Some of the most-installed open source software is GPL-licensed, such as Linux, WordPress, and Wikipedia’s underlying software, MediaWiki. Wikipedia’s content is (mostly) under the Creative Commons BY-SA license, which has similar share-alike features to the GPL. For individual contributors who want assurances of openness and transparency, and to avoid a BSD-into-OSX situation, the GPL provides assurance that other contributors will be held to the same licensing terms. While the GPL can be a turnoff for some corporations, it can create community among individuals.
https://www.exygy.com/blog/which-license-should-i-use-mit-vs-apache-vs-gpl
