You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@nuttx.apache.org by Christofer Dutz <cd...@apache.org> on 2023/10/17 16:37:16 UTC
Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
Hi all,
Just came across this thread while reviewing your last board report.
In the PLC4X project we have CAN drivers and we Support C in PLC4C.
However nobody has ported CAN driver to C yet (But thanks to our code generation it should be quite simple).
Perhaps switching to a fully Apache Licensed driver could help resolve this issue?
Chris
On 2023/09/13 10:10:01 Andrew Dennison wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2023, 9:07 PM Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
>
> > On 2023/08/09 00:20:42 Andrew Dennison wrote:
> > > Hi Nuttx Dev,
> > >
> > > We are negotiating with the authors of the linux device driver for the
> > CTU
> > > CAN FD IP core to it re-licenced from GPL to so the driver can then be
> > > ported to Nuttx.
> >
> > Just a reminder: Apache policy prohibits GPL code, or GPL-derived code,
> > from being included in any ASF project:
> >
> > https://apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x
> >
> > If there is *any* question about the license of incoming code, then you
> > should ask the Legal Affairs Committee for advice, after reviewing the
> > ASF policy on source headers:
> >
> >
> Hi Shane,
>
> This is understood: as per teh original email we contacted all the
> copyright holders of the out-of-tree linux driver and they have all agreed
> to change the code to reference several licences:
>
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 19:48, Pavel Pisa <pi...@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:
>
> >
> > OK, consider driver code license and NuttX compatible.
> > We need to discuss what will be actual variant and file
> > headers text. I suggest
> >
> > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0
>
>
> This complies with my reading of a link provided by Brennan:
>
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 10:43, Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>
> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> This is covered here
> > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
> >
>
> Hopefully it is apparent that we are doing everything to ensure we can get
> this driver integrated into nuttx so others can benefit. We could just
> "scratch our own itch" and keep it external. That is less work, but we are
> actively contributing to Nuttx (eg riscv, kernel mode enhancements and
> litex platform support) as we see the value in doing this.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> *MoTeC Pty Ltd*
>
> 121 Merrindale Drive
> Croydon South 3136
> Victoria Australia
> *T: *61 3 9761 5050
> *W: *www.motec.com.au <https://www.motec.com.au/>
>
>
> --
> <http://www.facebook.com/motec.global>
> <http://www.youtube.com/user/MoTeCAustralia>
> <https://www.instagram.com/motec_global/>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/motec-global>
> <https://twitter.com/motec_global>
>
>
> --
> <https://www.motec.com.au>
>
> --
>
>
> Disclaimer Notice: This message, including any attachments, contains
> confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose and
> is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you should
> delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
> message or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited.
>
Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
Posted by Andrew Dennison <an...@motec.com.au>.
Hi Alan,
Yes - I can view that list and have successfully subscribed.
Kind regards,
Andrew Dennison
Chief Architect and Hardware Team Lead
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 at 03:17, Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Sorry my delay, I opened the jira issue and they suggested me to ask
> at legal-discuss mailling list.
>
> I think it is public, so maybe everybody involved on this subject
> could be involved.
> Could you please confirm you have access to:
> https://lists.apache.org/list.html?legal-discuss@apache.org ?
>
> BR,
>
> Alan
>
> On 11/9/23, Andrew Dennison <an...@motec.com.au> wrote:
> > Hi Alan,
> >
> > Just confirming you got the suggested request i sent you off-list and
> that
> > it didn't end up in spam.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 21, 2023, 12:38 AM Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> I have access to Apache JIRA, please send me the suggested request and
> >> I will open a ticket there.
> >>
> >> BR,
> >>
> >> Alan
> >>
> >> On 10/20/23, Andrew Dennison <an...@motec.com.au> wrote:
> >> > To answer my own question: it seems public accounts are disabled for
> >> Apache
> >> > jira. If this is the next step what's the process to get this request
> >> > raised? Can someone here help?
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023, 7:12 AM Andrew Dennison
> >> > <an...@motec.com.au>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Brennan,
> >> >>
> >> >> Is this something anyone can do? If so I'll take this step to move
> >> >> forward: it's been unclear how to get this question resolved.
> >> >>
> >> >> Kind regards,
> >> >>
> >> >> Andrew
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023, 1:36 AM Brennan Ashton
> >> >> <bashton@brennanashton.com
> >> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> There is wayyyyy to much speculation here (and some jus wrong
> >> >>> statements).
> >> >>> Someone just needs to open an Apache JIRA ticket with legal and you
> >> will
> >> >>> get an offical answer.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --Brennan
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, 2:54 AM Andrew Dennison <
> >> >>> andrew.dennison@motec.com.au>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > Hi all,
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Wow, i didn't think we were doing anything other than trying to
> >> >>> > help
> >> >>> > facilitate adding more driver support. The easiest approach seems
> >> >>> > to
> >> >>> > be
> >> >>> to
> >> >>> > get the os independent components licenced by the original authors
> >> >>> > in
> >> >>> > a
> >> >>> > compatible way so we can move forward with the technical element.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > My recollection is the license A OR B proposal came from a
> document
> >> on
> >> >>> the
> >> >>> > Apache website we were pointed to on this mailing list a few
> months
> >> >>> > ago,
> >> >>> > but maybe I'm mistaken.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Is this really the first time this has been debated? There seemed
> >> >>> > to
> >> >>> > be
> >> >>> > examples of this exact model when a had a quick look around.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > I just want to find out if there is a way forward compatible with
> >> >>> > Apache
> >> >>> > requirements: IANAL and don't want to speculate on the way
> forward,
> >> >>> > just
> >> >>> > thought it was easier to ask.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Can anyone in the project help facilitate an "official" answer
> from
> >> >>> Apache?
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Kind regards,
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Andrew
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > PS: the driver authors are not subscribed, so probably haven't
> seen
> >> >>> > this
> >> >>> > recently debate. I'll coordinate with them if there is a way
> >> >>> > forward.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, 6:49 PM Sebastien Lorquet <
> >> sebastien@lorquet.fr>
> >> >>> > wrote:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > > Are you seriously taking legal advice, on behalf of an apache
> >> >>> > > project,
> >> >>> > > from a generative language model?
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > > Sebastien
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > > Le 17/10/2023 à 22:22, Alan C. Assis a écrit :
> >> >>> > > > Oops, it was: you cannot enforce both at same time.
> >> >>> > > >
> >> >>> > > > Actually I think I was wrong (not about enforcing), but the
> >> >>> > > > main
> >> >>> issue
> >> >>> > > > about Dual license is how the contributions will evolve.
> >> >>> > > >
> >> >>> > > > I decided to ask about it to ChatGPT:
> >> >>> > > >
> >> >>> > > > "
> >> >>> > > > Question: if an open-source software X was released as dual
> >> >>> > > > license
> >> >>> > > > GPL and Apache License, can we used it in our project NuttX
> >> >>> > > > that
> >> >>> used
> >> >>> > > > Apache License?
> >> >>> > > >
> >> >>> > > > If an open-source software X is released under both the GPL
> >> >>> > > > (GNU
> >> >>> > > > General Public License) and the Apache License, you generally
> >> have
> >> >>> > > > some flexibility in how you can use it in your project NuttX,
> >> >>> > > > which
> >> >>> is
> >> >>> > > > licensed under the Apache License. However, there are
> important
> >> >>> > > > considerations and potential complications to keep in mind:
> >> >>> > > >
> >> >>> > > > Compatibility of Licenses:
> >> >>> > > > The Apache License and the GPL are generally
> >> >>> > > > considered
> >> >>> > > > to
> >> >>> be
> >> >>> > > > compatible licenses. This means that you can include
> >> >>> > > > Apache-licensed
> >> >>> > > > code in a GPL-licensed project and vice versa without
> violating
> >> >>> > > > the
> >> >>> > > > terms of either license.
> >> >>> > > >
> >> >>> > > > License Choice:
> >> >>> > > > When incorporating dual-licensed code into your
> >> >>> > > > project,
> >> >>> you
> >> >>> > > > have a choice in which license to follow. If you choose the
> >> Apache
> >> >>> > > > License, you can do so without any issues, as the Apache
> >> >>> > > > License
> >> >>> > > > is
> >> >>> > > > permissive. However, if you choose the GPL, you must comply
> >> >>> > > > with
> >> >>> > > > the
> >> >>> > > > terms of the GPL, which may include open-sourcing your entire
> >> >>> project
> >> >>> > > > under the GPL.
> >> >>> > > >
> >> >>> > > > Potential GPL Implications:
> >> >>> > > > Using the GPL-licensed version of software X may have
> >> >>> > > > implications for the licensing of your entire project. The GPL
> >> >>> > > > is
> >> >>> > > > a
> >> >>> > > > more restrictive license that requires you to release your
> >> >>> > > > entire
> >> >>> > > > project under the GPL if you use GPL-licensed code. This could
> >> >>> affect
> >> >>> > > > how you distribute your project and any proprietary components
> >> >>> within
> >> >>> > > > it.
> >> >>> > > >
> >> >>> > > > Be Careful with License Mixing:
> >> >>> > > > It's important to carefully manage the licensing of
> >> >>> > > > each
> >> >>> > > > component within your project. Ensure that you clearly
> identify
> >> >>> > > > and
> >> >>> > > > understand the licensing terms of each component and only
> >> >>> > > > include
> >> >>> code
> >> >>> > > > in your project that is compatible with the licensing choices
> >> >>> > > > you
> >> >>> want
> >> >>> > > > to make.
> >> >>> > > >
> >> >>> > > > Consult Legal Advice:
> >> >>> > > > Dual licensing can be complex, and the specific terms
> >> >>> > > > of
> >> >>> > > > software X may have variations or nuances that need legal
> >> >>> > > > interpretation. It's advisable to consult with a legal expert
> >> >>> > > > who
> >> >>> > > > is
> >> >>> > > > well-versed in open source licensing if you have any doubts or
> >> >>> > > > concerns.
> >> >>> > > >
> >> >>> > > > In summary, you can use the dual-licensed software X in your
> >> >>> > > > project
> >> >>> > > > NuttX that is under the Apache License. However, you need to
> >> >>> > > > make
> >> >>> > > > a
> >> >>> > > > conscious choice about which license to follow for the code
> >> >>> > > > from
> >> >>> > > > software X, and be aware of the potential implications,
> >> especially
> >> >>> if
> >> >>> > > > you decide to use the GPL-licensed version, as it may affect
> >> >>> > > > the
> >> >>> > > > licensing of your entire project. Consulting with a legal
> >> >>> > > > expert
> >> >>> > > > is
> >> >>> a
> >> >>> > > > wise step when dealing with complex licensing issues.
> >> >>> > > > "
> >> >>> > > >
> >> >>> > > > So, we are back to square one!
> >> >>> > > >
> >> >>> > > > BR,
> >> >>> > > >
> >> >>> > > > Alan
> >> >>> > > >
> >> >>> > > > On 10/17/23, Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>> > > >> Hi Tomek,
> >> >>> > > >>
> >> >>> > > >> On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
> >> >>> > > >>>> To be honest I don't see a big issue of a driver as dual
> >> >>> license, we
> >> >>> > > >>>> already have SocketCAN and other drivers as dual license
> >> >>> > > >>>> (GPL
> >> >>> > > >>>> and
> >> >>> > > >>>> Apache, BSD and Apache, etc). The original Author said the
> >> want
> >> >>> is
> >> >>> > to
> >> >>> > > >>>> be released as dual license: A or license B.
> >> >>> > > >>> Isn't is more A AND B ?
> >> >>> > > >>>
> >> >>> > > >>> A OR B == I want A but not B so I stick to A ? :-P
> >> >>> > > >>>
> >> >>> > > >> No, because technically you can enforce two at same time, in
> >> that
> >> >>> case
> >> >>> > > >> GPL could prevail! :-)
> >> >>> > > >>
> >> >>> > > >>>> The License war is terrible, I think there is not a single
> >> >>> license
> >> >>> > > >>>> compatible with all, even CC0, BSD or public domain cannot
> >> >>> > > >>>> be
> >> >>> used
> >> >>> > as
> >> >>> > > >>>> freely was we think. Many countries law, companies,
> patents,
> >> >>> > > >>>> etc,
> >> >>> > > >>>> involved.
> >> >>> > > >>> BSD and MIT seems most liberal. Apache also clarifies patent
> >> >>> stuff.
> >> >>> > > >>> GPL is viral and enforces GPL on all further works.
> >> >>> > > >>>
> >> >>> > > >>> As above, if the case is "A AND B" then GPL taints
> everything
> >> to
> >> >>> be
> >> >>> > GPL
> >> >>> > > >>> too..?
> >> >>> > > >>>
> >> >>> > > >> See, the Author defines it as dual license (so yes A "AND"
> B),
> >> >>> > > >> but
> >> >>> if
> >> >>> > > >> project X uses license A it will stick to license A instead
> of
> >> B.
> >> >>> If
> >> >>> > > >> project Y uses license B it will stick with B instead of A.
> >> >>> > > >>
> >> >>> > > >> So, more precisely it is A XOR B.
> >> >>> > > >>
> >> >>> > > >>> Quck search (query: gpl vs apache vs bsd license) resulting
> >> >>> > > >>> quote
> >> >>> :
> >> >>> > > >>>
> >> >>> > > >>> "
> >> >>> > > >>> I will mainly talk about the practical consequences and not
> >> >>> > > >>> go
> >> >>> into
> >> >>> > > >>> the nitty gritty. By GPL compatible I mean that a GPL
> project
> >> >>> > > >>> can
> >> >>> use
> >> >>> > > >>> your code (NOT you can use GPL code).
> >> >>> > > >>>
> >> >>> > > >>> The MIT and BSD 2 clause licenses have similar requirements:
> >> >>> > > >>> keep
> >> >>> the
> >> >>> > > >>> license file. The BSD 3 clause license adds a term to the
> BSD
> >> >>> > > >>> 2
> >> >>> that
> >> >>> > > >>> prevents someone from claiming false endorsement. These
> three
> >> >>> > licenses
> >> >>> > > >>> are compatible with GPLv2 and v3.
> >> >>> > > >>>
> >> >>> > > >>> The Apache 2.0 license requires you to keep the license
> file,
> >> >>> > > >>> the
> >> >>> > > >>> NOTICE file if there is one, and show notice for modified
> >> files.
> >> >>> It
> >> >>> > > >>> also addresses some patent-related issues, so companies use
> >> >>> > > >>> it
> >> a
> >> >>> lot.
> >> >>> > > >>> It is compatible with GPLv3 but not v2 (due to the patent
> >> >>> clauses).
> >> >>> > > >>>
> >> >>> > > >>> There is also an old BSD license that has an clause related
> >> >>> > > >>> to
> >> >>> > > >>> advertising. Don't use it because it's not GPL compatible.
> >> >>> > > >>>
> >> >>> > > >>> In practice, the ecosystem you are working with has a
> license
> >> >>> that is
> >> >>> > > >>> used most often to begin with, and I would stick to that.
> For
> >> >>> > example,
> >> >>> > > >>> I would use MIT for Nodejs packages. If you are working on
> an
> >> >>> > > >>> application, some would recommend using the Apache 2.0
> >> >>> > > >>> license
> >> >>> > because
> >> >>> > > >>> it covers patent issues.
> >> >>> > > >>> "
> >> >>> > > >>>
> >> >>> > > >>> And some references:
> >> >>> > > >>>
> >> >>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License
> >> >>> > > >>>
> >> >>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
> >> >>> > > >>>
> >> >>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
> >> >>> > > >>>
> >> >>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
> >> >>> > > >>>
> >> >>> > > >>> :-)
> >> >>> > > >>>
> >> >>> > > >> Yes, BTW the original author said the driver will be offered
> >> >>> > > >> as
> >> >>> dual
> >> >>> > > >> license (GPL "AND" / "OR" / "XOR" / "however" Apache) so I
> >> think
> >> >>> it
> >> >>> > > >> fear to use under Apache License
> >> >>> > > >>
> >> >>> > > >> I don't know how we could fix this Catch 22, maybe the Author
> >> >>> > > >> could
> >> >>> > > >> release two separated versions?
> >> >>> > > >>
> >> >>> > > >> BR,
> >> >>> > > >>
> >> >>> > > >> Alan
> >> >>> > > >>
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > --
> >> >>> > *MoTeC Pty Ltd*
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > 121 Merrindale Drive
> >> >>> > Croydon South 3136
> >> >>> > Victoria Australia
> >> >>> > *T: *61 3 9761 5050
> >> >>> > *W: *www.motec.com.au <https://www.motec.com.au/>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > --
> >> >>> > <http://www.facebook.com/motec.global>
> >> >>> > <http://www.youtube.com/user/MoTeCAustralia>
> >> >>> > <https://www.instagram.com/motec_global/>
> >> >>> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/motec-global>
> >> >>> > <https://twitter.com/motec_global>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > --
> >> >>> > <https://www.professionalmotorsport-expo.com/en/register.php>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > --
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Disclaimer Notice: This message, including any attachments,
> >> >>> > contains
> >> >>> > confidential information intended for a specific individual and
> >> >>> > purpose
> >> >>> > and
> >> >>> > is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you
> >> >>> > should
> >> >>> > delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of
> >> >>> > this
> >> >>> > message or the taking of any action based on it is strictly
> >> >>> > prohibited.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > *MoTeC Pty Ltd*
> >> >
> >> > 121 Merrindale Drive
> >> > Croydon South 3136
> >> > Victoria Australia
> >> > *T: *61 3 9761 5050
> >> > *W: *www.motec.com.au <https://www.motec.com.au/>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > <http://www.facebook.com/motec.global>
> >> > <http://www.youtube.com/user/MoTeCAustralia>
> >> > <https://www.instagram.com/motec_global/>
> >> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/motec-global>
> >> > <https://twitter.com/motec_global>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > <https://www.professionalmotorsport-expo.com/en/register.php>
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Disclaimer Notice: This message, including any attachments, contains
> >> > confidential information intended for a specific individual and
> purpose
> >> and
> >> >
> >> > is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you should
> >> > delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
> >> > message or the taking of any action based on it is strictly
> prohibited.
> >> >
> >>
> >
> > --
> > *MoTeC Pty Ltd*
> >
> > 121 Merrindale Drive
> > Croydon South 3136
> > Victoria Australia
> > *T: *61 3 9761 5050
> > *W: *www.motec.com.au <https://www.motec.com.au/>
> >
> >
> > --
> > <http://www.facebook.com/motec.global>
> > <http://www.youtube.com/user/MoTeCAustralia>
> > <https://www.instagram.com/motec_global/>
> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/motec-global>
> > <https://twitter.com/motec_global>
> >
> >
> > --
> > <https://www.professionalmotorsport-expo.com/en/register.php>
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Disclaimer Notice: This message, including any attachments, contains
> > confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose
> and
> >
> > is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you should
> > delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
> > message or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited.
> >
>
--
*MoTeC Pty Ltd*
121 Merrindale Drive
Croydon South 3136
Victoria Australia
*T: *61 3 9761 5050
*W: *www.motec.com.au <https://www.motec.com.au/>
--
<http://www.facebook.com/motec.global>
<http://www.youtube.com/user/MoTeCAustralia>
<https://www.instagram.com/motec_global/>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/motec-global>
<https://twitter.com/motec_global>
--
<https://www.professionalmotorsport-expo.com/en/register.php>
--
Disclaimer Notice: This message, including any attachments, contains
confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose and
is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you should
delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited.
Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
Posted by "Alan C. Assis" <ac...@gmail.com>.
Hi Andrew,
Sorry my delay, I opened the jira issue and they suggested me to ask
at legal-discuss mailling list.
I think it is public, so maybe everybody involved on this subject
could be involved.
Could you please confirm you have access to:
https://lists.apache.org/list.html?legal-discuss@apache.org ?
BR,
Alan
On 11/9/23, Andrew Dennison <an...@motec.com.au> wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> Just confirming you got the suggested request i sent you off-list and that
> it didn't end up in spam.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2023, 12:38 AM Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> I have access to Apache JIRA, please send me the suggested request and
>> I will open a ticket there.
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> On 10/20/23, Andrew Dennison <an...@motec.com.au> wrote:
>> > To answer my own question: it seems public accounts are disabled for
>> Apache
>> > jira. If this is the next step what's the process to get this request
>> > raised? Can someone here help?
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023, 7:12 AM Andrew Dennison
>> > <an...@motec.com.au>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Brennan,
>> >>
>> >> Is this something anyone can do? If so I'll take this step to move
>> >> forward: it's been unclear how to get this question resolved.
>> >>
>> >> Kind regards,
>> >>
>> >> Andrew
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023, 1:36 AM Brennan Ashton
>> >> <bashton@brennanashton.com
>> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> There is wayyyyy to much speculation here (and some jus wrong
>> >>> statements).
>> >>> Someone just needs to open an Apache JIRA ticket with legal and you
>> will
>> >>> get an offical answer.
>> >>>
>> >>> --Brennan
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, 2:54 AM Andrew Dennison <
>> >>> andrew.dennison@motec.com.au>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > Hi all,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Wow, i didn't think we were doing anything other than trying to
>> >>> > help
>> >>> > facilitate adding more driver support. The easiest approach seems
>> >>> > to
>> >>> > be
>> >>> to
>> >>> > get the os independent components licenced by the original authors
>> >>> > in
>> >>> > a
>> >>> > compatible way so we can move forward with the technical element.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > My recollection is the license A OR B proposal came from a document
>> on
>> >>> the
>> >>> > Apache website we were pointed to on this mailing list a few months
>> >>> > ago,
>> >>> > but maybe I'm mistaken.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Is this really the first time this has been debated? There seemed
>> >>> > to
>> >>> > be
>> >>> > examples of this exact model when a had a quick look around.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I just want to find out if there is a way forward compatible with
>> >>> > Apache
>> >>> > requirements: IANAL and don't want to speculate on the way forward,
>> >>> > just
>> >>> > thought it was easier to ask.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Can anyone in the project help facilitate an "official" answer from
>> >>> Apache?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Kind regards,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Andrew
>> >>> >
>> >>> > PS: the driver authors are not subscribed, so probably haven't seen
>> >>> > this
>> >>> > recently debate. I'll coordinate with them if there is a way
>> >>> > forward.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, 6:49 PM Sebastien Lorquet <
>> sebastien@lorquet.fr>
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > > Are you seriously taking legal advice, on behalf of an apache
>> >>> > > project,
>> >>> > > from a generative language model?
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > Sebastien
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > Le 17/10/2023 à 22:22, Alan C. Assis a écrit :
>> >>> > > > Oops, it was: you cannot enforce both at same time.
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > Actually I think I was wrong (not about enforcing), but the
>> >>> > > > main
>> >>> issue
>> >>> > > > about Dual license is how the contributions will evolve.
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > I decided to ask about it to ChatGPT:
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > "
>> >>> > > > Question: if an open-source software X was released as dual
>> >>> > > > license
>> >>> > > > GPL and Apache License, can we used it in our project NuttX
>> >>> > > > that
>> >>> used
>> >>> > > > Apache License?
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > If an open-source software X is released under both the GPL
>> >>> > > > (GNU
>> >>> > > > General Public License) and the Apache License, you generally
>> have
>> >>> > > > some flexibility in how you can use it in your project NuttX,
>> >>> > > > which
>> >>> is
>> >>> > > > licensed under the Apache License. However, there are important
>> >>> > > > considerations and potential complications to keep in mind:
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > Compatibility of Licenses:
>> >>> > > > The Apache License and the GPL are generally
>> >>> > > > considered
>> >>> > > > to
>> >>> be
>> >>> > > > compatible licenses. This means that you can include
>> >>> > > > Apache-licensed
>> >>> > > > code in a GPL-licensed project and vice versa without violating
>> >>> > > > the
>> >>> > > > terms of either license.
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > License Choice:
>> >>> > > > When incorporating dual-licensed code into your
>> >>> > > > project,
>> >>> you
>> >>> > > > have a choice in which license to follow. If you choose the
>> Apache
>> >>> > > > License, you can do so without any issues, as the Apache
>> >>> > > > License
>> >>> > > > is
>> >>> > > > permissive. However, if you choose the GPL, you must comply
>> >>> > > > with
>> >>> > > > the
>> >>> > > > terms of the GPL, which may include open-sourcing your entire
>> >>> project
>> >>> > > > under the GPL.
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > Potential GPL Implications:
>> >>> > > > Using the GPL-licensed version of software X may have
>> >>> > > > implications for the licensing of your entire project. The GPL
>> >>> > > > is
>> >>> > > > a
>> >>> > > > more restrictive license that requires you to release your
>> >>> > > > entire
>> >>> > > > project under the GPL if you use GPL-licensed code. This could
>> >>> affect
>> >>> > > > how you distribute your project and any proprietary components
>> >>> within
>> >>> > > > it.
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > Be Careful with License Mixing:
>> >>> > > > It's important to carefully manage the licensing of
>> >>> > > > each
>> >>> > > > component within your project. Ensure that you clearly identify
>> >>> > > > and
>> >>> > > > understand the licensing terms of each component and only
>> >>> > > > include
>> >>> code
>> >>> > > > in your project that is compatible with the licensing choices
>> >>> > > > you
>> >>> want
>> >>> > > > to make.
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > Consult Legal Advice:
>> >>> > > > Dual licensing can be complex, and the specific terms
>> >>> > > > of
>> >>> > > > software X may have variations or nuances that need legal
>> >>> > > > interpretation. It's advisable to consult with a legal expert
>> >>> > > > who
>> >>> > > > is
>> >>> > > > well-versed in open source licensing if you have any doubts or
>> >>> > > > concerns.
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > In summary, you can use the dual-licensed software X in your
>> >>> > > > project
>> >>> > > > NuttX that is under the Apache License. However, you need to
>> >>> > > > make
>> >>> > > > a
>> >>> > > > conscious choice about which license to follow for the code
>> >>> > > > from
>> >>> > > > software X, and be aware of the potential implications,
>> especially
>> >>> if
>> >>> > > > you decide to use the GPL-licensed version, as it may affect
>> >>> > > > the
>> >>> > > > licensing of your entire project. Consulting with a legal
>> >>> > > > expert
>> >>> > > > is
>> >>> a
>> >>> > > > wise step when dealing with complex licensing issues.
>> >>> > > > "
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > So, we are back to square one!
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > BR,
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > Alan
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > On 10/17/23, Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> > > >> Hi Tomek,
>> >>> > > >>
>> >>> > > >> On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
>> >>> > > >>>> To be honest I don't see a big issue of a driver as dual
>> >>> license, we
>> >>> > > >>>> already have SocketCAN and other drivers as dual license
>> >>> > > >>>> (GPL
>> >>> > > >>>> and
>> >>> > > >>>> Apache, BSD and Apache, etc). The original Author said the
>> want
>> >>> is
>> >>> > to
>> >>> > > >>>> be released as dual license: A or license B.
>> >>> > > >>> Isn't is more A AND B ?
>> >>> > > >>>
>> >>> > > >>> A OR B == I want A but not B so I stick to A ? :-P
>> >>> > > >>>
>> >>> > > >> No, because technically you can enforce two at same time, in
>> that
>> >>> case
>> >>> > > >> GPL could prevail! :-)
>> >>> > > >>
>> >>> > > >>>> The License war is terrible, I think there is not a single
>> >>> license
>> >>> > > >>>> compatible with all, even CC0, BSD or public domain cannot
>> >>> > > >>>> be
>> >>> used
>> >>> > as
>> >>> > > >>>> freely was we think. Many countries law, companies, patents,
>> >>> > > >>>> etc,
>> >>> > > >>>> involved.
>> >>> > > >>> BSD and MIT seems most liberal. Apache also clarifies patent
>> >>> stuff.
>> >>> > > >>> GPL is viral and enforces GPL on all further works.
>> >>> > > >>>
>> >>> > > >>> As above, if the case is "A AND B" then GPL taints everything
>> to
>> >>> be
>> >>> > GPL
>> >>> > > >>> too..?
>> >>> > > >>>
>> >>> > > >> See, the Author defines it as dual license (so yes A "AND" B),
>> >>> > > >> but
>> >>> if
>> >>> > > >> project X uses license A it will stick to license A instead of
>> B.
>> >>> If
>> >>> > > >> project Y uses license B it will stick with B instead of A.
>> >>> > > >>
>> >>> > > >> So, more precisely it is A XOR B.
>> >>> > > >>
>> >>> > > >>> Quck search (query: gpl vs apache vs bsd license) resulting
>> >>> > > >>> quote
>> >>> :
>> >>> > > >>>
>> >>> > > >>> "
>> >>> > > >>> I will mainly talk about the practical consequences and not
>> >>> > > >>> go
>> >>> into
>> >>> > > >>> the nitty gritty. By GPL compatible I mean that a GPL project
>> >>> > > >>> can
>> >>> use
>> >>> > > >>> your code (NOT you can use GPL code).
>> >>> > > >>>
>> >>> > > >>> The MIT and BSD 2 clause licenses have similar requirements:
>> >>> > > >>> keep
>> >>> the
>> >>> > > >>> license file. The BSD 3 clause license adds a term to the BSD
>> >>> > > >>> 2
>> >>> that
>> >>> > > >>> prevents someone from claiming false endorsement. These three
>> >>> > licenses
>> >>> > > >>> are compatible with GPLv2 and v3.
>> >>> > > >>>
>> >>> > > >>> The Apache 2.0 license requires you to keep the license file,
>> >>> > > >>> the
>> >>> > > >>> NOTICE file if there is one, and show notice for modified
>> files.
>> >>> It
>> >>> > > >>> also addresses some patent-related issues, so companies use
>> >>> > > >>> it
>> a
>> >>> lot.
>> >>> > > >>> It is compatible with GPLv3 but not v2 (due to the patent
>> >>> clauses).
>> >>> > > >>>
>> >>> > > >>> There is also an old BSD license that has an clause related
>> >>> > > >>> to
>> >>> > > >>> advertising. Don't use it because it's not GPL compatible.
>> >>> > > >>>
>> >>> > > >>> In practice, the ecosystem you are working with has a license
>> >>> that is
>> >>> > > >>> used most often to begin with, and I would stick to that. For
>> >>> > example,
>> >>> > > >>> I would use MIT for Nodejs packages. If you are working on an
>> >>> > > >>> application, some would recommend using the Apache 2.0
>> >>> > > >>> license
>> >>> > because
>> >>> > > >>> it covers patent issues.
>> >>> > > >>> "
>> >>> > > >>>
>> >>> > > >>> And some references:
>> >>> > > >>>
>> >>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License
>> >>> > > >>>
>> >>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
>> >>> > > >>>
>> >>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
>> >>> > > >>>
>> >>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
>> >>> > > >>>
>> >>> > > >>> :-)
>> >>> > > >>>
>> >>> > > >> Yes, BTW the original author said the driver will be offered
>> >>> > > >> as
>> >>> dual
>> >>> > > >> license (GPL "AND" / "OR" / "XOR" / "however" Apache) so I
>> think
>> >>> it
>> >>> > > >> fear to use under Apache License
>> >>> > > >>
>> >>> > > >> I don't know how we could fix this Catch 22, maybe the Author
>> >>> > > >> could
>> >>> > > >> release two separated versions?
>> >>> > > >>
>> >>> > > >> BR,
>> >>> > > >>
>> >>> > > >> Alan
>> >>> > > >>
>> >>> > >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > --
>> >>> > *MoTeC Pty Ltd*
>> >>> >
>> >>> > 121 Merrindale Drive
>> >>> > Croydon South 3136
>> >>> > Victoria Australia
>> >>> > *T: *61 3 9761 5050
>> >>> > *W: *www.motec.com.au <https://www.motec.com.au/>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > --
>> >>> > <http://www.facebook.com/motec.global>
>> >>> > <http://www.youtube.com/user/MoTeCAustralia>
>> >>> > <https://www.instagram.com/motec_global/>
>> >>> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/motec-global>
>> >>> > <https://twitter.com/motec_global>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > --
>> >>> > <https://www.professionalmotorsport-expo.com/en/register.php>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > --
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Disclaimer Notice: This message, including any attachments,
>> >>> > contains
>> >>> > confidential information intended for a specific individual and
>> >>> > purpose
>> >>> > and
>> >>> > is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you
>> >>> > should
>> >>> > delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of
>> >>> > this
>> >>> > message or the taking of any action based on it is strictly
>> >>> > prohibited.
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > *MoTeC Pty Ltd*
>> >
>> > 121 Merrindale Drive
>> > Croydon South 3136
>> > Victoria Australia
>> > *T: *61 3 9761 5050
>> > *W: *www.motec.com.au <https://www.motec.com.au/>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > <http://www.facebook.com/motec.global>
>> > <http://www.youtube.com/user/MoTeCAustralia>
>> > <https://www.instagram.com/motec_global/>
>> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/motec-global>
>> > <https://twitter.com/motec_global>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > <https://www.professionalmotorsport-expo.com/en/register.php>
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> >
>> > Disclaimer Notice: This message, including any attachments, contains
>> > confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose
>> and
>> >
>> > is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you should
>> > delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
>> > message or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited.
>> >
>>
>
> --
> *MoTeC Pty Ltd*
>
> 121 Merrindale Drive
> Croydon South 3136
> Victoria Australia
> *T: *61 3 9761 5050
> *W: *www.motec.com.au <https://www.motec.com.au/>
>
>
> --
> <http://www.facebook.com/motec.global>
> <http://www.youtube.com/user/MoTeCAustralia>
> <https://www.instagram.com/motec_global/>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/motec-global>
> <https://twitter.com/motec_global>
>
>
> --
> <https://www.professionalmotorsport-expo.com/en/register.php>
>
> --
>
>
> Disclaimer Notice: This message, including any attachments, contains
> confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose and
>
> is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you should
> delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
> message or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited.
>
Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
Posted by Andrew Dennison <an...@motec.com.au>.
Hi Alan,
Just confirming you got the suggested request i sent you off-list and that
it didn't end up in spam.
Thanks,
Andrew
On Sat, Oct 21, 2023, 12:38 AM Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I have access to Apache JIRA, please send me the suggested request and
> I will open a ticket there.
>
> BR,
>
> Alan
>
> On 10/20/23, Andrew Dennison <an...@motec.com.au> wrote:
> > To answer my own question: it seems public accounts are disabled for
> Apache
> > jira. If this is the next step what's the process to get this request
> > raised? Can someone here help?
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023, 7:12 AM Andrew Dennison
> > <an...@motec.com.au>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Brennan,
> >>
> >> Is this something anyone can do? If so I'll take this step to move
> >> forward: it's been unclear how to get this question resolved.
> >>
> >> Kind regards,
> >>
> >> Andrew
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023, 1:36 AM Brennan Ashton <bashton@brennanashton.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> There is wayyyyy to much speculation here (and some jus wrong
> >>> statements).
> >>> Someone just needs to open an Apache JIRA ticket with legal and you
> will
> >>> get an offical answer.
> >>>
> >>> --Brennan
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, 2:54 AM Andrew Dennison <
> >>> andrew.dennison@motec.com.au>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Hi all,
> >>> >
> >>> > Wow, i didn't think we were doing anything other than trying to help
> >>> > facilitate adding more driver support. The easiest approach seems to
> >>> > be
> >>> to
> >>> > get the os independent components licenced by the original authors in
> >>> > a
> >>> > compatible way so we can move forward with the technical element.
> >>> >
> >>> > My recollection is the license A OR B proposal came from a document
> on
> >>> the
> >>> > Apache website we were pointed to on this mailing list a few months
> >>> > ago,
> >>> > but maybe I'm mistaken.
> >>> >
> >>> > Is this really the first time this has been debated? There seemed to
> >>> > be
> >>> > examples of this exact model when a had a quick look around.
> >>> >
> >>> > I just want to find out if there is a way forward compatible with
> >>> > Apache
> >>> > requirements: IANAL and don't want to speculate on the way forward,
> >>> > just
> >>> > thought it was easier to ask.
> >>> >
> >>> > Can anyone in the project help facilitate an "official" answer from
> >>> Apache?
> >>> >
> >>> > Kind regards,
> >>> >
> >>> > Andrew
> >>> >
> >>> > PS: the driver authors are not subscribed, so probably haven't seen
> >>> > this
> >>> > recently debate. I'll coordinate with them if there is a way forward.
> >>> >
> >>> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, 6:49 PM Sebastien Lorquet <
> sebastien@lorquet.fr>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > Are you seriously taking legal advice, on behalf of an apache
> >>> > > project,
> >>> > > from a generative language model?
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Sebastien
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Le 17/10/2023 à 22:22, Alan C. Assis a écrit :
> >>> > > > Oops, it was: you cannot enforce both at same time.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Actually I think I was wrong (not about enforcing), but the main
> >>> issue
> >>> > > > about Dual license is how the contributions will evolve.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > I decided to ask about it to ChatGPT:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > "
> >>> > > > Question: if an open-source software X was released as dual
> >>> > > > license
> >>> > > > GPL and Apache License, can we used it in our project NuttX that
> >>> used
> >>> > > > Apache License?
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > If an open-source software X is released under both the GPL (GNU
> >>> > > > General Public License) and the Apache License, you generally
> have
> >>> > > > some flexibility in how you can use it in your project NuttX,
> >>> > > > which
> >>> is
> >>> > > > licensed under the Apache License. However, there are important
> >>> > > > considerations and potential complications to keep in mind:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Compatibility of Licenses:
> >>> > > > The Apache License and the GPL are generally considered
> >>> > > > to
> >>> be
> >>> > > > compatible licenses. This means that you can include
> >>> > > > Apache-licensed
> >>> > > > code in a GPL-licensed project and vice versa without violating
> >>> > > > the
> >>> > > > terms of either license.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > License Choice:
> >>> > > > When incorporating dual-licensed code into your project,
> >>> you
> >>> > > > have a choice in which license to follow. If you choose the
> Apache
> >>> > > > License, you can do so without any issues, as the Apache License
> >>> > > > is
> >>> > > > permissive. However, if you choose the GPL, you must comply with
> >>> > > > the
> >>> > > > terms of the GPL, which may include open-sourcing your entire
> >>> project
> >>> > > > under the GPL.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Potential GPL Implications:
> >>> > > > Using the GPL-licensed version of software X may have
> >>> > > > implications for the licensing of your entire project. The GPL is
> >>> > > > a
> >>> > > > more restrictive license that requires you to release your entire
> >>> > > > project under the GPL if you use GPL-licensed code. This could
> >>> affect
> >>> > > > how you distribute your project and any proprietary components
> >>> within
> >>> > > > it.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Be Careful with License Mixing:
> >>> > > > It's important to carefully manage the licensing of each
> >>> > > > component within your project. Ensure that you clearly identify
> >>> > > > and
> >>> > > > understand the licensing terms of each component and only include
> >>> code
> >>> > > > in your project that is compatible with the licensing choices you
> >>> want
> >>> > > > to make.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Consult Legal Advice:
> >>> > > > Dual licensing can be complex, and the specific terms of
> >>> > > > software X may have variations or nuances that need legal
> >>> > > > interpretation. It's advisable to consult with a legal expert who
> >>> > > > is
> >>> > > > well-versed in open source licensing if you have any doubts or
> >>> > > > concerns.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > In summary, you can use the dual-licensed software X in your
> >>> > > > project
> >>> > > > NuttX that is under the Apache License. However, you need to make
> >>> > > > a
> >>> > > > conscious choice about which license to follow for the code from
> >>> > > > software X, and be aware of the potential implications,
> especially
> >>> if
> >>> > > > you decide to use the GPL-licensed version, as it may affect the
> >>> > > > licensing of your entire project. Consulting with a legal expert
> >>> > > > is
> >>> a
> >>> > > > wise step when dealing with complex licensing issues.
> >>> > > > "
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > So, we are back to square one!
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > BR,
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Alan
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > On 10/17/23, Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > > >> Hi Tomek,
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
> >>> > > >>>> To be honest I don't see a big issue of a driver as dual
> >>> license, we
> >>> > > >>>> already have SocketCAN and other drivers as dual license (GPL
> >>> > > >>>> and
> >>> > > >>>> Apache, BSD and Apache, etc). The original Author said the
> want
> >>> is
> >>> > to
> >>> > > >>>> be released as dual license: A or license B.
> >>> > > >>> Isn't is more A AND B ?
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > >>> A OR B == I want A but not B so I stick to A ? :-P
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > >> No, because technically you can enforce two at same time, in
> that
> >>> case
> >>> > > >> GPL could prevail! :-)
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >>>> The License war is terrible, I think there is not a single
> >>> license
> >>> > > >>>> compatible with all, even CC0, BSD or public domain cannot be
> >>> used
> >>> > as
> >>> > > >>>> freely was we think. Many countries law, companies, patents,
> >>> > > >>>> etc,
> >>> > > >>>> involved.
> >>> > > >>> BSD and MIT seems most liberal. Apache also clarifies patent
> >>> stuff.
> >>> > > >>> GPL is viral and enforces GPL on all further works.
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > >>> As above, if the case is "A AND B" then GPL taints everything
> to
> >>> be
> >>> > GPL
> >>> > > >>> too..?
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > >> See, the Author defines it as dual license (so yes A "AND" B),
> >>> > > >> but
> >>> if
> >>> > > >> project X uses license A it will stick to license A instead of
> B.
> >>> If
> >>> > > >> project Y uses license B it will stick with B instead of A.
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> So, more precisely it is A XOR B.
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >>> Quck search (query: gpl vs apache vs bsd license) resulting
> >>> > > >>> quote
> >>> :
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > >>> "
> >>> > > >>> I will mainly talk about the practical consequences and not go
> >>> into
> >>> > > >>> the nitty gritty. By GPL compatible I mean that a GPL project
> >>> > > >>> can
> >>> use
> >>> > > >>> your code (NOT you can use GPL code).
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > >>> The MIT and BSD 2 clause licenses have similar requirements:
> >>> > > >>> keep
> >>> the
> >>> > > >>> license file. The BSD 3 clause license adds a term to the BSD 2
> >>> that
> >>> > > >>> prevents someone from claiming false endorsement. These three
> >>> > licenses
> >>> > > >>> are compatible with GPLv2 and v3.
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > >>> The Apache 2.0 license requires you to keep the license file,
> >>> > > >>> the
> >>> > > >>> NOTICE file if there is one, and show notice for modified
> files.
> >>> It
> >>> > > >>> also addresses some patent-related issues, so companies use it
> a
> >>> lot.
> >>> > > >>> It is compatible with GPLv3 but not v2 (due to the patent
> >>> clauses).
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > >>> There is also an old BSD license that has an clause related to
> >>> > > >>> advertising. Don't use it because it's not GPL compatible.
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > >>> In practice, the ecosystem you are working with has a license
> >>> that is
> >>> > > >>> used most often to begin with, and I would stick to that. For
> >>> > example,
> >>> > > >>> I would use MIT for Nodejs packages. If you are working on an
> >>> > > >>> application, some would recommend using the Apache 2.0 license
> >>> > because
> >>> > > >>> it covers patent issues.
> >>> > > >>> "
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > >>> And some references:
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > >>> :-)
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > >> Yes, BTW the original author said the driver will be offered as
> >>> dual
> >>> > > >> license (GPL "AND" / "OR" / "XOR" / "however" Apache) so I
> think
> >>> it
> >>> > > >> fear to use under Apache License
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> I don't know how we could fix this Catch 22, maybe the Author
> >>> > > >> could
> >>> > > >> release two separated versions?
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> BR,
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> Alan
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > *MoTeC Pty Ltd*
> >>> >
> >>> > 121 Merrindale Drive
> >>> > Croydon South 3136
> >>> > Victoria Australia
> >>> > *T: *61 3 9761 5050
> >>> > *W: *www.motec.com.au <https://www.motec.com.au/>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > <http://www.facebook.com/motec.global>
> >>> > <http://www.youtube.com/user/MoTeCAustralia>
> >>> > <https://www.instagram.com/motec_global/>
> >>> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/motec-global>
> >>> > <https://twitter.com/motec_global>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > <https://www.professionalmotorsport-expo.com/en/register.php>
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Disclaimer Notice: This message, including any attachments, contains
> >>> > confidential information intended for a specific individual and
> >>> > purpose
> >>> > and
> >>> > is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you should
> >>> > delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
> >>> > message or the taking of any action based on it is strictly
> >>> > prohibited.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > *MoTeC Pty Ltd*
> >
> > 121 Merrindale Drive
> > Croydon South 3136
> > Victoria Australia
> > *T: *61 3 9761 5050
> > *W: *www.motec.com.au <https://www.motec.com.au/>
> >
> >
> > --
> > <http://www.facebook.com/motec.global>
> > <http://www.youtube.com/user/MoTeCAustralia>
> > <https://www.instagram.com/motec_global/>
> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/motec-global>
> > <https://twitter.com/motec_global>
> >
> >
> > --
> > <https://www.professionalmotorsport-expo.com/en/register.php>
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Disclaimer Notice: This message, including any attachments, contains
> > confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose
> and
> >
> > is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you should
> > delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
> > message or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited.
> >
>
--
*MoTeC Pty Ltd*
121 Merrindale Drive
Croydon South 3136
Victoria Australia
*T: *61 3 9761 5050
*W: *www.motec.com.au <https://www.motec.com.au/>
--
<http://www.facebook.com/motec.global>
<http://www.youtube.com/user/MoTeCAustralia>
<https://www.instagram.com/motec_global/>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/motec-global>
<https://twitter.com/motec_global>
--
<https://www.professionalmotorsport-expo.com/en/register.php>
--
Disclaimer Notice: This message, including any attachments, contains
confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose and
is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you should
delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited.
Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
Posted by "Alan C. Assis" <ac...@gmail.com>.
Hi Andrew,
I have access to Apache JIRA, please send me the suggested request and
I will open a ticket there.
BR,
Alan
On 10/20/23, Andrew Dennison <an...@motec.com.au> wrote:
> To answer my own question: it seems public accounts are disabled for Apache
> jira. If this is the next step what's the process to get this request
> raised? Can someone here help?
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023, 7:12 AM Andrew Dennison
> <an...@motec.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Brennan,
>>
>> Is this something anyone can do? If so I'll take this step to move
>> forward: it's been unclear how to get this question resolved.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023, 1:36 AM Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There is wayyyyy to much speculation here (and some jus wrong
>>> statements).
>>> Someone just needs to open an Apache JIRA ticket with legal and you will
>>> get an offical answer.
>>>
>>> --Brennan
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, 2:54 AM Andrew Dennison <
>>> andrew.dennison@motec.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > Wow, i didn't think we were doing anything other than trying to help
>>> > facilitate adding more driver support. The easiest approach seems to
>>> > be
>>> to
>>> > get the os independent components licenced by the original authors in
>>> > a
>>> > compatible way so we can move forward with the technical element.
>>> >
>>> > My recollection is the license A OR B proposal came from a document on
>>> the
>>> > Apache website we were pointed to on this mailing list a few months
>>> > ago,
>>> > but maybe I'm mistaken.
>>> >
>>> > Is this really the first time this has been debated? There seemed to
>>> > be
>>> > examples of this exact model when a had a quick look around.
>>> >
>>> > I just want to find out if there is a way forward compatible with
>>> > Apache
>>> > requirements: IANAL and don't want to speculate on the way forward,
>>> > just
>>> > thought it was easier to ask.
>>> >
>>> > Can anyone in the project help facilitate an "official" answer from
>>> Apache?
>>> >
>>> > Kind regards,
>>> >
>>> > Andrew
>>> >
>>> > PS: the driver authors are not subscribed, so probably haven't seen
>>> > this
>>> > recently debate. I'll coordinate with them if there is a way forward.
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, 6:49 PM Sebastien Lorquet <se...@lorquet.fr>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Are you seriously taking legal advice, on behalf of an apache
>>> > > project,
>>> > > from a generative language model?
>>> > >
>>> > > Sebastien
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Le 17/10/2023 à 22:22, Alan C. Assis a écrit :
>>> > > > Oops, it was: you cannot enforce both at same time.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Actually I think I was wrong (not about enforcing), but the main
>>> issue
>>> > > > about Dual license is how the contributions will evolve.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I decided to ask about it to ChatGPT:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > "
>>> > > > Question: if an open-source software X was released as dual
>>> > > > license
>>> > > > GPL and Apache License, can we used it in our project NuttX that
>>> used
>>> > > > Apache License?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > If an open-source software X is released under both the GPL (GNU
>>> > > > General Public License) and the Apache License, you generally have
>>> > > > some flexibility in how you can use it in your project NuttX,
>>> > > > which
>>> is
>>> > > > licensed under the Apache License. However, there are important
>>> > > > considerations and potential complications to keep in mind:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Compatibility of Licenses:
>>> > > > The Apache License and the GPL are generally considered
>>> > > > to
>>> be
>>> > > > compatible licenses. This means that you can include
>>> > > > Apache-licensed
>>> > > > code in a GPL-licensed project and vice versa without violating
>>> > > > the
>>> > > > terms of either license.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > License Choice:
>>> > > > When incorporating dual-licensed code into your project,
>>> you
>>> > > > have a choice in which license to follow. If you choose the Apache
>>> > > > License, you can do so without any issues, as the Apache License
>>> > > > is
>>> > > > permissive. However, if you choose the GPL, you must comply with
>>> > > > the
>>> > > > terms of the GPL, which may include open-sourcing your entire
>>> project
>>> > > > under the GPL.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Potential GPL Implications:
>>> > > > Using the GPL-licensed version of software X may have
>>> > > > implications for the licensing of your entire project. The GPL is
>>> > > > a
>>> > > > more restrictive license that requires you to release your entire
>>> > > > project under the GPL if you use GPL-licensed code. This could
>>> affect
>>> > > > how you distribute your project and any proprietary components
>>> within
>>> > > > it.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Be Careful with License Mixing:
>>> > > > It's important to carefully manage the licensing of each
>>> > > > component within your project. Ensure that you clearly identify
>>> > > > and
>>> > > > understand the licensing terms of each component and only include
>>> code
>>> > > > in your project that is compatible with the licensing choices you
>>> want
>>> > > > to make.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Consult Legal Advice:
>>> > > > Dual licensing can be complex, and the specific terms of
>>> > > > software X may have variations or nuances that need legal
>>> > > > interpretation. It's advisable to consult with a legal expert who
>>> > > > is
>>> > > > well-versed in open source licensing if you have any doubts or
>>> > > > concerns.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > In summary, you can use the dual-licensed software X in your
>>> > > > project
>>> > > > NuttX that is under the Apache License. However, you need to make
>>> > > > a
>>> > > > conscious choice about which license to follow for the code from
>>> > > > software X, and be aware of the potential implications, especially
>>> if
>>> > > > you decide to use the GPL-licensed version, as it may affect the
>>> > > > licensing of your entire project. Consulting with a legal expert
>>> > > > is
>>> a
>>> > > > wise step when dealing with complex licensing issues.
>>> > > > "
>>> > > >
>>> > > > So, we are back to square one!
>>> > > >
>>> > > > BR,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Alan
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On 10/17/23, Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >> Hi Tomek,
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
>>> > > >>>> To be honest I don't see a big issue of a driver as dual
>>> license, we
>>> > > >>>> already have SocketCAN and other drivers as dual license (GPL
>>> > > >>>> and
>>> > > >>>> Apache, BSD and Apache, etc). The original Author said the want
>>> is
>>> > to
>>> > > >>>> be released as dual license: A or license B.
>>> > > >>> Isn't is more A AND B ?
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> A OR B == I want A but not B so I stick to A ? :-P
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >> No, because technically you can enforce two at same time, in that
>>> case
>>> > > >> GPL could prevail! :-)
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>>> The License war is terrible, I think there is not a single
>>> license
>>> > > >>>> compatible with all, even CC0, BSD or public domain cannot be
>>> used
>>> > as
>>> > > >>>> freely was we think. Many countries law, companies, patents,
>>> > > >>>> etc,
>>> > > >>>> involved.
>>> > > >>> BSD and MIT seems most liberal. Apache also clarifies patent
>>> stuff.
>>> > > >>> GPL is viral and enforces GPL on all further works.
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> As above, if the case is "A AND B" then GPL taints everything to
>>> be
>>> > GPL
>>> > > >>> too..?
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >> See, the Author defines it as dual license (so yes A "AND" B),
>>> > > >> but
>>> if
>>> > > >> project X uses license A it will stick to license A instead of B.
>>> If
>>> > > >> project Y uses license B it will stick with B instead of A.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> So, more precisely it is A XOR B.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>> Quck search (query: gpl vs apache vs bsd license) resulting
>>> > > >>> quote
>>> :
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> "
>>> > > >>> I will mainly talk about the practical consequences and not go
>>> into
>>> > > >>> the nitty gritty. By GPL compatible I mean that a GPL project
>>> > > >>> can
>>> use
>>> > > >>> your code (NOT you can use GPL code).
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> The MIT and BSD 2 clause licenses have similar requirements:
>>> > > >>> keep
>>> the
>>> > > >>> license file. The BSD 3 clause license adds a term to the BSD 2
>>> that
>>> > > >>> prevents someone from claiming false endorsement. These three
>>> > licenses
>>> > > >>> are compatible with GPLv2 and v3.
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> The Apache 2.0 license requires you to keep the license file,
>>> > > >>> the
>>> > > >>> NOTICE file if there is one, and show notice for modified files.
>>> It
>>> > > >>> also addresses some patent-related issues, so companies use it a
>>> lot.
>>> > > >>> It is compatible with GPLv3 but not v2 (due to the patent
>>> clauses).
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> There is also an old BSD license that has an clause related to
>>> > > >>> advertising. Don't use it because it's not GPL compatible.
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> In practice, the ecosystem you are working with has a license
>>> that is
>>> > > >>> used most often to begin with, and I would stick to that. For
>>> > example,
>>> > > >>> I would use MIT for Nodejs packages. If you are working on an
>>> > > >>> application, some would recommend using the Apache 2.0 license
>>> > because
>>> > > >>> it covers patent issues.
>>> > > >>> "
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> And some references:
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> :-)
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >> Yes, BTW the original author said the driver will be offered as
>>> dual
>>> > > >> license (GPL "AND" / "OR" / "XOR" / "however" Apache) so I think
>>> it
>>> > > >> fear to use under Apache License
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> I don't know how we could fix this Catch 22, maybe the Author
>>> > > >> could
>>> > > >> release two separated versions?
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> BR,
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> Alan
>>> > > >>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > *MoTeC Pty Ltd*
>>> >
>>> > 121 Merrindale Drive
>>> > Croydon South 3136
>>> > Victoria Australia
>>> > *T: *61 3 9761 5050
>>> > *W: *www.motec.com.au <https://www.motec.com.au/>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > <http://www.facebook.com/motec.global>
>>> > <http://www.youtube.com/user/MoTeCAustralia>
>>> > <https://www.instagram.com/motec_global/>
>>> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/motec-global>
>>> > <https://twitter.com/motec_global>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > <https://www.professionalmotorsport-expo.com/en/register.php>
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Disclaimer Notice: This message, including any attachments, contains
>>> > confidential information intended for a specific individual and
>>> > purpose
>>> > and
>>> > is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you should
>>> > delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
>>> > message or the taking of any action based on it is strictly
>>> > prohibited.
>>> >
>>>
>>
>
> --
> *MoTeC Pty Ltd*
>
> 121 Merrindale Drive
> Croydon South 3136
> Victoria Australia
> *T: *61 3 9761 5050
> *W: *www.motec.com.au <https://www.motec.com.au/>
>
>
> --
> <http://www.facebook.com/motec.global>
> <http://www.youtube.com/user/MoTeCAustralia>
> <https://www.instagram.com/motec_global/>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/motec-global>
> <https://twitter.com/motec_global>
>
>
> --
> <https://www.professionalmotorsport-expo.com/en/register.php>
>
> --
>
>
> Disclaimer Notice: This message, including any attachments, contains
> confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose and
>
> is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you should
> delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
> message or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited.
>
Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
Posted by Andrew Dennison <an...@motec.com.au>.
To answer my own question: it seems public accounts are disabled for Apache
jira. If this is the next step what's the process to get this request
raised? Can someone here help?
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023, 7:12 AM Andrew Dennison <an...@motec.com.au>
wrote:
> Hi Brennan,
>
> Is this something anyone can do? If so I'll take this step to move
> forward: it's been unclear how to get this question resolved.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Andrew
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023, 1:36 AM Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>
> wrote:
>
>> There is wayyyyy to much speculation here (and some jus wrong statements).
>> Someone just needs to open an Apache JIRA ticket with legal and you will
>> get an offical answer.
>>
>> --Brennan
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, 2:54 AM Andrew Dennison <
>> andrew.dennison@motec.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Wow, i didn't think we were doing anything other than trying to help
>> > facilitate adding more driver support. The easiest approach seems to be
>> to
>> > get the os independent components licenced by the original authors in a
>> > compatible way so we can move forward with the technical element.
>> >
>> > My recollection is the license A OR B proposal came from a document on
>> the
>> > Apache website we were pointed to on this mailing list a few months ago,
>> > but maybe I'm mistaken.
>> >
>> > Is this really the first time this has been debated? There seemed to be
>> > examples of this exact model when a had a quick look around.
>> >
>> > I just want to find out if there is a way forward compatible with Apache
>> > requirements: IANAL and don't want to speculate on the way forward, just
>> > thought it was easier to ask.
>> >
>> > Can anyone in the project help facilitate an "official" answer from
>> Apache?
>> >
>> > Kind regards,
>> >
>> > Andrew
>> >
>> > PS: the driver authors are not subscribed, so probably haven't seen this
>> > recently debate. I'll coordinate with them if there is a way forward.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, 6:49 PM Sebastien Lorquet <se...@lorquet.fr>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Are you seriously taking legal advice, on behalf of an apache project,
>> > > from a generative language model?
>> > >
>> > > Sebastien
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Le 17/10/2023 à 22:22, Alan C. Assis a écrit :
>> > > > Oops, it was: you cannot enforce both at same time.
>> > > >
>> > > > Actually I think I was wrong (not about enforcing), but the main
>> issue
>> > > > about Dual license is how the contributions will evolve.
>> > > >
>> > > > I decided to ask about it to ChatGPT:
>> > > >
>> > > > "
>> > > > Question: if an open-source software X was released as dual license
>> > > > GPL and Apache License, can we used it in our project NuttX that
>> used
>> > > > Apache License?
>> > > >
>> > > > If an open-source software X is released under both the GPL (GNU
>> > > > General Public License) and the Apache License, you generally have
>> > > > some flexibility in how you can use it in your project NuttX, which
>> is
>> > > > licensed under the Apache License. However, there are important
>> > > > considerations and potential complications to keep in mind:
>> > > >
>> > > > Compatibility of Licenses:
>> > > > The Apache License and the GPL are generally considered to
>> be
>> > > > compatible licenses. This means that you can include Apache-licensed
>> > > > code in a GPL-licensed project and vice versa without violating the
>> > > > terms of either license.
>> > > >
>> > > > License Choice:
>> > > > When incorporating dual-licensed code into your project,
>> you
>> > > > have a choice in which license to follow. If you choose the Apache
>> > > > License, you can do so without any issues, as the Apache License is
>> > > > permissive. However, if you choose the GPL, you must comply with the
>> > > > terms of the GPL, which may include open-sourcing your entire
>> project
>> > > > under the GPL.
>> > > >
>> > > > Potential GPL Implications:
>> > > > Using the GPL-licensed version of software X may have
>> > > > implications for the licensing of your entire project. The GPL is a
>> > > > more restrictive license that requires you to release your entire
>> > > > project under the GPL if you use GPL-licensed code. This could
>> affect
>> > > > how you distribute your project and any proprietary components
>> within
>> > > > it.
>> > > >
>> > > > Be Careful with License Mixing:
>> > > > It's important to carefully manage the licensing of each
>> > > > component within your project. Ensure that you clearly identify and
>> > > > understand the licensing terms of each component and only include
>> code
>> > > > in your project that is compatible with the licensing choices you
>> want
>> > > > to make.
>> > > >
>> > > > Consult Legal Advice:
>> > > > Dual licensing can be complex, and the specific terms of
>> > > > software X may have variations or nuances that need legal
>> > > > interpretation. It's advisable to consult with a legal expert who is
>> > > > well-versed in open source licensing if you have any doubts or
>> > > > concerns.
>> > > >
>> > > > In summary, you can use the dual-licensed software X in your project
>> > > > NuttX that is under the Apache License. However, you need to make a
>> > > > conscious choice about which license to follow for the code from
>> > > > software X, and be aware of the potential implications, especially
>> if
>> > > > you decide to use the GPL-licensed version, as it may affect the
>> > > > licensing of your entire project. Consulting with a legal expert is
>> a
>> > > > wise step when dealing with complex licensing issues.
>> > > > "
>> > > >
>> > > > So, we are back to square one!
>> > > >
>> > > > BR,
>> > > >
>> > > > Alan
>> > > >
>> > > > On 10/17/23, Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> Hi Tomek,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
>> > > >>>> To be honest I don't see a big issue of a driver as dual
>> license, we
>> > > >>>> already have SocketCAN and other drivers as dual license (GPL and
>> > > >>>> Apache, BSD and Apache, etc). The original Author said the want
>> is
>> > to
>> > > >>>> be released as dual license: A or license B.
>> > > >>> Isn't is more A AND B ?
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> A OR B == I want A but not B so I stick to A ? :-P
>> > > >>>
>> > > >> No, because technically you can enforce two at same time, in that
>> case
>> > > >> GPL could prevail! :-)
>> > > >>
>> > > >>>> The License war is terrible, I think there is not a single
>> license
>> > > >>>> compatible with all, even CC0, BSD or public domain cannot be
>> used
>> > as
>> > > >>>> freely was we think. Many countries law, companies, patents, etc,
>> > > >>>> involved.
>> > > >>> BSD and MIT seems most liberal. Apache also clarifies patent
>> stuff.
>> > > >>> GPL is viral and enforces GPL on all further works.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> As above, if the case is "A AND B" then GPL taints everything to
>> be
>> > GPL
>> > > >>> too..?
>> > > >>>
>> > > >> See, the Author defines it as dual license (so yes A "AND" B), but
>> if
>> > > >> project X uses license A it will stick to license A instead of B.
>> If
>> > > >> project Y uses license B it will stick with B instead of A.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> So, more precisely it is A XOR B.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> Quck search (query: gpl vs apache vs bsd license) resulting quote
>> :
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> "
>> > > >>> I will mainly talk about the practical consequences and not go
>> into
>> > > >>> the nitty gritty. By GPL compatible I mean that a GPL project can
>> use
>> > > >>> your code (NOT you can use GPL code).
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> The MIT and BSD 2 clause licenses have similar requirements: keep
>> the
>> > > >>> license file. The BSD 3 clause license adds a term to the BSD 2
>> that
>> > > >>> prevents someone from claiming false endorsement. These three
>> > licenses
>> > > >>> are compatible with GPLv2 and v3.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> The Apache 2.0 license requires you to keep the license file, the
>> > > >>> NOTICE file if there is one, and show notice for modified files.
>> It
>> > > >>> also addresses some patent-related issues, so companies use it a
>> lot.
>> > > >>> It is compatible with GPLv3 but not v2 (due to the patent
>> clauses).
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> There is also an old BSD license that has an clause related to
>> > > >>> advertising. Don't use it because it's not GPL compatible.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> In practice, the ecosystem you are working with has a license
>> that is
>> > > >>> used most often to begin with, and I would stick to that. For
>> > example,
>> > > >>> I would use MIT for Nodejs packages. If you are working on an
>> > > >>> application, some would recommend using the Apache 2.0 license
>> > because
>> > > >>> it covers patent issues.
>> > > >>> "
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> And some references:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> :-)
>> > > >>>
>> > > >> Yes, BTW the original author said the driver will be offered as
>> dual
>> > > >> license (GPL "AND" / "OR" / "XOR" / "however" Apache) so I think
>> it
>> > > >> fear to use under Apache License
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I don't know how we could fix this Catch 22, maybe the Author could
>> > > >> release two separated versions?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> BR,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Alan
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> >
>> > --
>> > *MoTeC Pty Ltd*
>> >
>> > 121 Merrindale Drive
>> > Croydon South 3136
>> > Victoria Australia
>> > *T: *61 3 9761 5050
>> > *W: *www.motec.com.au <https://www.motec.com.au/>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > <http://www.facebook.com/motec.global>
>> > <http://www.youtube.com/user/MoTeCAustralia>
>> > <https://www.instagram.com/motec_global/>
>> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/motec-global>
>> > <https://twitter.com/motec_global>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > <https://www.professionalmotorsport-expo.com/en/register.php>
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> >
>> > Disclaimer Notice: This message, including any attachments, contains
>> > confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose
>> > and
>> > is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you should
>> > delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
>> > message or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited.
>> >
>>
>
--
*MoTeC Pty Ltd*
121 Merrindale Drive
Croydon South 3136
Victoria Australia
*T: *61 3 9761 5050
*W: *www.motec.com.au <https://www.motec.com.au/>
--
<http://www.facebook.com/motec.global>
<http://www.youtube.com/user/MoTeCAustralia>
<https://www.instagram.com/motec_global/>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/motec-global>
<https://twitter.com/motec_global>
--
<https://www.professionalmotorsport-expo.com/en/register.php>
--
Disclaimer Notice: This message, including any attachments, contains
confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose and
is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you should
delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited.
Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
Posted by Andrew Dennison <an...@motec.com.au>.
Hi Brennan,
Is this something anyone can do? If so I'll take this step to move forward:
it's been unclear how to get this question resolved.
Kind regards,
Andrew
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023, 1:36 AM Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>
wrote:
> There is wayyyyy to much speculation here (and some jus wrong statements).
> Someone just needs to open an Apache JIRA ticket with legal and you will
> get an offical answer.
>
> --Brennan
>
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, 2:54 AM Andrew Dennison <
> andrew.dennison@motec.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Wow, i didn't think we were doing anything other than trying to help
> > facilitate adding more driver support. The easiest approach seems to be
> to
> > get the os independent components licenced by the original authors in a
> > compatible way so we can move forward with the technical element.
> >
> > My recollection is the license A OR B proposal came from a document on
> the
> > Apache website we were pointed to on this mailing list a few months ago,
> > but maybe I'm mistaken.
> >
> > Is this really the first time this has been debated? There seemed to be
> > examples of this exact model when a had a quick look around.
> >
> > I just want to find out if there is a way forward compatible with Apache
> > requirements: IANAL and don't want to speculate on the way forward, just
> > thought it was easier to ask.
> >
> > Can anyone in the project help facilitate an "official" answer from
> Apache?
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> > PS: the driver authors are not subscribed, so probably haven't seen this
> > recently debate. I'll coordinate with them if there is a way forward.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, 6:49 PM Sebastien Lorquet <se...@lorquet.fr>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Are you seriously taking legal advice, on behalf of an apache project,
> > > from a generative language model?
> > >
> > > Sebastien
> > >
> > >
> > > Le 17/10/2023 à 22:22, Alan C. Assis a écrit :
> > > > Oops, it was: you cannot enforce both at same time.
> > > >
> > > > Actually I think I was wrong (not about enforcing), but the main
> issue
> > > > about Dual license is how the contributions will evolve.
> > > >
> > > > I decided to ask about it to ChatGPT:
> > > >
> > > > "
> > > > Question: if an open-source software X was released as dual license
> > > > GPL and Apache License, can we used it in our project NuttX that used
> > > > Apache License?
> > > >
> > > > If an open-source software X is released under both the GPL (GNU
> > > > General Public License) and the Apache License, you generally have
> > > > some flexibility in how you can use it in your project NuttX, which
> is
> > > > licensed under the Apache License. However, there are important
> > > > considerations and potential complications to keep in mind:
> > > >
> > > > Compatibility of Licenses:
> > > > The Apache License and the GPL are generally considered to
> be
> > > > compatible licenses. This means that you can include Apache-licensed
> > > > code in a GPL-licensed project and vice versa without violating the
> > > > terms of either license.
> > > >
> > > > License Choice:
> > > > When incorporating dual-licensed code into your project, you
> > > > have a choice in which license to follow. If you choose the Apache
> > > > License, you can do so without any issues, as the Apache License is
> > > > permissive. However, if you choose the GPL, you must comply with the
> > > > terms of the GPL, which may include open-sourcing your entire project
> > > > under the GPL.
> > > >
> > > > Potential GPL Implications:
> > > > Using the GPL-licensed version of software X may have
> > > > implications for the licensing of your entire project. The GPL is a
> > > > more restrictive license that requires you to release your entire
> > > > project under the GPL if you use GPL-licensed code. This could affect
> > > > how you distribute your project and any proprietary components within
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > Be Careful with License Mixing:
> > > > It's important to carefully manage the licensing of each
> > > > component within your project. Ensure that you clearly identify and
> > > > understand the licensing terms of each component and only include
> code
> > > > in your project that is compatible with the licensing choices you
> want
> > > > to make.
> > > >
> > > > Consult Legal Advice:
> > > > Dual licensing can be complex, and the specific terms of
> > > > software X may have variations or nuances that need legal
> > > > interpretation. It's advisable to consult with a legal expert who is
> > > > well-versed in open source licensing if you have any doubts or
> > > > concerns.
> > > >
> > > > In summary, you can use the dual-licensed software X in your project
> > > > NuttX that is under the Apache License. However, you need to make a
> > > > conscious choice about which license to follow for the code from
> > > > software X, and be aware of the potential implications, especially if
> > > > you decide to use the GPL-licensed version, as it may affect the
> > > > licensing of your entire project. Consulting with a legal expert is a
> > > > wise step when dealing with complex licensing issues.
> > > > "
> > > >
> > > > So, we are back to square one!
> > > >
> > > > BR,
> > > >
> > > > Alan
> > > >
> > > > On 10/17/23, Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Hi Tomek,
> > > >>
> > > >> On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
> > > >>>> To be honest I don't see a big issue of a driver as dual license,
> we
> > > >>>> already have SocketCAN and other drivers as dual license (GPL and
> > > >>>> Apache, BSD and Apache, etc). The original Author said the want is
> > to
> > > >>>> be released as dual license: A or license B.
> > > >>> Isn't is more A AND B ?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> A OR B == I want A but not B so I stick to A ? :-P
> > > >>>
> > > >> No, because technically you can enforce two at same time, in that
> case
> > > >> GPL could prevail! :-)
> > > >>
> > > >>>> The License war is terrible, I think there is not a single license
> > > >>>> compatible with all, even CC0, BSD or public domain cannot be used
> > as
> > > >>>> freely was we think. Many countries law, companies, patents, etc,
> > > >>>> involved.
> > > >>> BSD and MIT seems most liberal. Apache also clarifies patent stuff.
> > > >>> GPL is viral and enforces GPL on all further works.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> As above, if the case is "A AND B" then GPL taints everything to be
> > GPL
> > > >>> too..?
> > > >>>
> > > >> See, the Author defines it as dual license (so yes A "AND" B), but
> if
> > > >> project X uses license A it will stick to license A instead of B. If
> > > >> project Y uses license B it will stick with B instead of A.
> > > >>
> > > >> So, more precisely it is A XOR B.
> > > >>
> > > >>> Quck search (query: gpl vs apache vs bsd license) resulting quote :
> > > >>>
> > > >>> "
> > > >>> I will mainly talk about the practical consequences and not go into
> > > >>> the nitty gritty. By GPL compatible I mean that a GPL project can
> use
> > > >>> your code (NOT you can use GPL code).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The MIT and BSD 2 clause licenses have similar requirements: keep
> the
> > > >>> license file. The BSD 3 clause license adds a term to the BSD 2
> that
> > > >>> prevents someone from claiming false endorsement. These three
> > licenses
> > > >>> are compatible with GPLv2 and v3.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The Apache 2.0 license requires you to keep the license file, the
> > > >>> NOTICE file if there is one, and show notice for modified files. It
> > > >>> also addresses some patent-related issues, so companies use it a
> lot.
> > > >>> It is compatible with GPLv3 but not v2 (due to the patent clauses).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> There is also an old BSD license that has an clause related to
> > > >>> advertising. Don't use it because it's not GPL compatible.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> In practice, the ecosystem you are working with has a license that
> is
> > > >>> used most often to begin with, and I would stick to that. For
> > example,
> > > >>> I would use MIT for Nodejs packages. If you are working on an
> > > >>> application, some would recommend using the Apache 2.0 license
> > because
> > > >>> it covers patent issues.
> > > >>> "
> > > >>>
> > > >>> And some references:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License
> > > >>>
> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
> > > >>>
> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
> > > >>>
> > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
> > > >>>
> > > >>> :-)
> > > >>>
> > > >> Yes, BTW the original author said the driver will be offered as dual
> > > >> license (GPL "AND" / "OR" / "XOR" / "however" Apache) so I think it
> > > >> fear to use under Apache License
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't know how we could fix this Catch 22, maybe the Author could
> > > >> release two separated versions?
> > > >>
> > > >> BR,
> > > >>
> > > >> Alan
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> > --
> > *MoTeC Pty Ltd*
> >
> > 121 Merrindale Drive
> > Croydon South 3136
> > Victoria Australia
> > *T: *61 3 9761 5050
> > *W: *www.motec.com.au <https://www.motec.com.au/>
> >
> >
> > --
> > <http://www.facebook.com/motec.global>
> > <http://www.youtube.com/user/MoTeCAustralia>
> > <https://www.instagram.com/motec_global/>
> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/motec-global>
> > <https://twitter.com/motec_global>
> >
> >
> > --
> > <https://www.professionalmotorsport-expo.com/en/register.php>
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Disclaimer Notice: This message, including any attachments, contains
> > confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose
> > and
> > is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you should
> > delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
> > message or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited.
> >
>
--
*MoTeC Pty Ltd*
121 Merrindale Drive
Croydon South 3136
Victoria Australia
*T: *61 3 9761 5050
*W: *www.motec.com.au <https://www.motec.com.au/>
--
<http://www.facebook.com/motec.global>
<http://www.youtube.com/user/MoTeCAustralia>
<https://www.instagram.com/motec_global/>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/motec-global>
<https://twitter.com/motec_global>
--
<https://www.professionalmotorsport-expo.com/en/register.php>
--
Disclaimer Notice: This message, including any attachments, contains
confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose and
is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you should
delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited.
Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
Posted by Brennan Ashton <ba...@brennanashton.com>.
There is wayyyyy to much speculation here (and some jus wrong statements).
Someone just needs to open an Apache JIRA ticket with legal and you will
get an offical answer.
--Brennan
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, 2:54 AM Andrew Dennison <an...@motec.com.au>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Wow, i didn't think we were doing anything other than trying to help
> facilitate adding more driver support. The easiest approach seems to be to
> get the os independent components licenced by the original authors in a
> compatible way so we can move forward with the technical element.
>
> My recollection is the license A OR B proposal came from a document on the
> Apache website we were pointed to on this mailing list a few months ago,
> but maybe I'm mistaken.
>
> Is this really the first time this has been debated? There seemed to be
> examples of this exact model when a had a quick look around.
>
> I just want to find out if there is a way forward compatible with Apache
> requirements: IANAL and don't want to speculate on the way forward, just
> thought it was easier to ask.
>
> Can anyone in the project help facilitate an "official" answer from Apache?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Andrew
>
> PS: the driver authors are not subscribed, so probably haven't seen this
> recently debate. I'll coordinate with them if there is a way forward.
>
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, 6:49 PM Sebastien Lorquet <se...@lorquet.fr>
> wrote:
>
> > Are you seriously taking legal advice, on behalf of an apache project,
> > from a generative language model?
> >
> > Sebastien
> >
> >
> > Le 17/10/2023 à 22:22, Alan C. Assis a écrit :
> > > Oops, it was: you cannot enforce both at same time.
> > >
> > > Actually I think I was wrong (not about enforcing), but the main issue
> > > about Dual license is how the contributions will evolve.
> > >
> > > I decided to ask about it to ChatGPT:
> > >
> > > "
> > > Question: if an open-source software X was released as dual license
> > > GPL and Apache License, can we used it in our project NuttX that used
> > > Apache License?
> > >
> > > If an open-source software X is released under both the GPL (GNU
> > > General Public License) and the Apache License, you generally have
> > > some flexibility in how you can use it in your project NuttX, which is
> > > licensed under the Apache License. However, there are important
> > > considerations and potential complications to keep in mind:
> > >
> > > Compatibility of Licenses:
> > > The Apache License and the GPL are generally considered to be
> > > compatible licenses. This means that you can include Apache-licensed
> > > code in a GPL-licensed project and vice versa without violating the
> > > terms of either license.
> > >
> > > License Choice:
> > > When incorporating dual-licensed code into your project, you
> > > have a choice in which license to follow. If you choose the Apache
> > > License, you can do so without any issues, as the Apache License is
> > > permissive. However, if you choose the GPL, you must comply with the
> > > terms of the GPL, which may include open-sourcing your entire project
> > > under the GPL.
> > >
> > > Potential GPL Implications:
> > > Using the GPL-licensed version of software X may have
> > > implications for the licensing of your entire project. The GPL is a
> > > more restrictive license that requires you to release your entire
> > > project under the GPL if you use GPL-licensed code. This could affect
> > > how you distribute your project and any proprietary components within
> > > it.
> > >
> > > Be Careful with License Mixing:
> > > It's important to carefully manage the licensing of each
> > > component within your project. Ensure that you clearly identify and
> > > understand the licensing terms of each component and only include code
> > > in your project that is compatible with the licensing choices you want
> > > to make.
> > >
> > > Consult Legal Advice:
> > > Dual licensing can be complex, and the specific terms of
> > > software X may have variations or nuances that need legal
> > > interpretation. It's advisable to consult with a legal expert who is
> > > well-versed in open source licensing if you have any doubts or
> > > concerns.
> > >
> > > In summary, you can use the dual-licensed software X in your project
> > > NuttX that is under the Apache License. However, you need to make a
> > > conscious choice about which license to follow for the code from
> > > software X, and be aware of the potential implications, especially if
> > > you decide to use the GPL-licensed version, as it may affect the
> > > licensing of your entire project. Consulting with a legal expert is a
> > > wise step when dealing with complex licensing issues.
> > > "
> > >
> > > So, we are back to square one!
> > >
> > > BR,
> > >
> > > Alan
> > >
> > > On 10/17/23, Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Hi Tomek,
> > >>
> > >> On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
> > >>>> To be honest I don't see a big issue of a driver as dual license, we
> > >>>> already have SocketCAN and other drivers as dual license (GPL and
> > >>>> Apache, BSD and Apache, etc). The original Author said the want is
> to
> > >>>> be released as dual license: A or license B.
> > >>> Isn't is more A AND B ?
> > >>>
> > >>> A OR B == I want A but not B so I stick to A ? :-P
> > >>>
> > >> No, because technically you can enforce two at same time, in that case
> > >> GPL could prevail! :-)
> > >>
> > >>>> The License war is terrible, I think there is not a single license
> > >>>> compatible with all, even CC0, BSD or public domain cannot be used
> as
> > >>>> freely was we think. Many countries law, companies, patents, etc,
> > >>>> involved.
> > >>> BSD and MIT seems most liberal. Apache also clarifies patent stuff.
> > >>> GPL is viral and enforces GPL on all further works.
> > >>>
> > >>> As above, if the case is "A AND B" then GPL taints everything to be
> GPL
> > >>> too..?
> > >>>
> > >> See, the Author defines it as dual license (so yes A "AND" B), but if
> > >> project X uses license A it will stick to license A instead of B. If
> > >> project Y uses license B it will stick with B instead of A.
> > >>
> > >> So, more precisely it is A XOR B.
> > >>
> > >>> Quck search (query: gpl vs apache vs bsd license) resulting quote :
> > >>>
> > >>> "
> > >>> I will mainly talk about the practical consequences and not go into
> > >>> the nitty gritty. By GPL compatible I mean that a GPL project can use
> > >>> your code (NOT you can use GPL code).
> > >>>
> > >>> The MIT and BSD 2 clause licenses have similar requirements: keep the
> > >>> license file. The BSD 3 clause license adds a term to the BSD 2 that
> > >>> prevents someone from claiming false endorsement. These three
> licenses
> > >>> are compatible with GPLv2 and v3.
> > >>>
> > >>> The Apache 2.0 license requires you to keep the license file, the
> > >>> NOTICE file if there is one, and show notice for modified files. It
> > >>> also addresses some patent-related issues, so companies use it a lot.
> > >>> It is compatible with GPLv3 but not v2 (due to the patent clauses).
> > >>>
> > >>> There is also an old BSD license that has an clause related to
> > >>> advertising. Don't use it because it's not GPL compatible.
> > >>>
> > >>> In practice, the ecosystem you are working with has a license that is
> > >>> used most often to begin with, and I would stick to that. For
> example,
> > >>> I would use MIT for Nodejs packages. If you are working on an
> > >>> application, some would recommend using the Apache 2.0 license
> because
> > >>> it covers patent issues.
> > >>> "
> > >>>
> > >>> And some references:
> > >>>
> > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License
> > >>>
> > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
> > >>>
> > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
> > >>>
> > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
> > >>>
> > >>> :-)
> > >>>
> > >> Yes, BTW the original author said the driver will be offered as dual
> > >> license (GPL "AND" / "OR" / "XOR" / "however" Apache) so I think it
> > >> fear to use under Apache License
> > >>
> > >> I don't know how we could fix this Catch 22, maybe the Author could
> > >> release two separated versions?
> > >>
> > >> BR,
> > >>
> > >> Alan
> > >>
> >
>
> --
> *MoTeC Pty Ltd*
>
> 121 Merrindale Drive
> Croydon South 3136
> Victoria Australia
> *T: *61 3 9761 5050
> *W: *www.motec.com.au <https://www.motec.com.au/>
>
>
> --
> <http://www.facebook.com/motec.global>
> <http://www.youtube.com/user/MoTeCAustralia>
> <https://www.instagram.com/motec_global/>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/motec-global>
> <https://twitter.com/motec_global>
>
>
> --
> <https://www.professionalmotorsport-expo.com/en/register.php>
>
> --
>
>
> Disclaimer Notice: This message, including any attachments, contains
> confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose
> and
> is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you should
> delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
> message or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited.
>
Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
Posted by Alin Jerpelea <je...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
I am not a lawyer and understand the multi license code and it is not easy.
Here are my thoughts:
1. The GPL v2 license is incompatible with Apache v2 license
https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
2. Software contamination
https://www.mend.io/wp-content/media/2021/04/a-survival-guide-to-using-gpl.pdf
in a monolithic build I interpret the contamination as mandatory release of
all code (as copyleft), that has been incorporated in the contaminated item
(in our case the NuttX image). Please comment if you feel otherwise
I think that the GPL code isolation is not a good approach because the
developer that enables that code should know license implications and take
full responsibility of the implications of enabling GPL code in their local
build
In my opinion
1. License what can be re licensed as a pure Apache code
2. The GPL code should stay in a separate git (like will all planned from
the beginning) and not even be downloaded together with NuttX and apps
Best regards
Alin
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 11:55 AM Andrew Dennison <
andrew.dennison@motec.com.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Wow, i didn't think we were doing anything other than trying to help
> facilitate adding more driver support. The easiest approach seems to be to
> get the os independent components licenced by the original authors in a
> compatible way so we can move forward with the technical element.
>
> My recollection is the license A OR B proposal came from a document on the
> Apache website we were pointed to on this mailing list a few months ago,
> but maybe I'm mistaken.
>
> Is this really the first time this has been debated? There seemed to be
> examples of this exact model when a had a quick look around.
>
> I just want to find out if there is a way forward compatible with Apache
> requirements: IANAL and don't want to speculate on the way forward, just
> thought it was easier to ask.
>
> Can anyone in the project help facilitate an "official" answer from Apache?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Andrew
>
> PS: the driver authors are not subscribed, so probably haven't seen this
> recently debate. I'll coordinate with them if there is a way forward.
>
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, 6:49 PM Sebastien Lorquet <se...@lorquet.fr>
> wrote:
>
> > Are you seriously taking legal advice, on behalf of an apache project,
> > from a generative language model?
> >
> > Sebastien
> >
> >
> > Le 17/10/2023 à 22:22, Alan C. Assis a écrit :
> > > Oops, it was: you cannot enforce both at same time.
> > >
> > > Actually I think I was wrong (not about enforcing), but the main issue
> > > about Dual license is how the contributions will evolve.
> > >
> > > I decided to ask about it to ChatGPT:
> > >
> > > "
> > > Question: if an open-source software X was released as dual license
> > > GPL and Apache License, can we used it in our project NuttX that used
> > > Apache License?
> > >
> > > If an open-source software X is released under both the GPL (GNU
> > > General Public License) and the Apache License, you generally have
> > > some flexibility in how you can use it in your project NuttX, which is
> > > licensed under the Apache License. However, there are important
> > > considerations and potential complications to keep in mind:
> > >
> > > Compatibility of Licenses:
> > > The Apache License and the GPL are generally considered to be
> > > compatible licenses. This means that you can include Apache-licensed
> > > code in a GPL-licensed project and vice versa without violating the
> > > terms of either license.
> > >
> > > License Choice:
> > > When incorporating dual-licensed code into your project, you
> > > have a choice in which license to follow. If you choose the Apache
> > > License, you can do so without any issues, as the Apache License is
> > > permissive. However, if you choose the GPL, you must comply with the
> > > terms of the GPL, which may include open-sourcing your entire project
> > > under the GPL.
> > >
> > > Potential GPL Implications:
> > > Using the GPL-licensed version of software X may have
> > > implications for the licensing of your entire project. The GPL is a
> > > more restrictive license that requires you to release your entire
> > > project under the GPL if you use GPL-licensed code. This could affect
> > > how you distribute your project and any proprietary components within
> > > it.
> > >
> > > Be Careful with License Mixing:
> > > It's important to carefully manage the licensing of each
> > > component within your project. Ensure that you clearly identify and
> > > understand the licensing terms of each component and only include code
> > > in your project that is compatible with the licensing choices you want
> > > to make.
> > >
> > > Consult Legal Advice:
> > > Dual licensing can be complex, and the specific terms of
> > > software X may have variations or nuances that need legal
> > > interpretation. It's advisable to consult with a legal expert who is
> > > well-versed in open source licensing if you have any doubts or
> > > concerns.
> > >
> > > In summary, you can use the dual-licensed software X in your project
> > > NuttX that is under the Apache License. However, you need to make a
> > > conscious choice about which license to follow for the code from
> > > software X, and be aware of the potential implications, especially if
> > > you decide to use the GPL-licensed version, as it may affect the
> > > licensing of your entire project. Consulting with a legal expert is a
> > > wise step when dealing with complex licensing issues.
> > > "
> > >
> > > So, we are back to square one!
> > >
> > > BR,
> > >
> > > Alan
> > >
> > > On 10/17/23, Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Hi Tomek,
> > >>
> > >> On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
> > >>>> To be honest I don't see a big issue of a driver as dual license, we
> > >>>> already have SocketCAN and other drivers as dual license (GPL and
> > >>>> Apache, BSD and Apache, etc). The original Author said the want is
> to
> > >>>> be released as dual license: A or license B.
> > >>> Isn't is more A AND B ?
> > >>>
> > >>> A OR B == I want A but not B so I stick to A ? :-P
> > >>>
> > >> No, because technically you can enforce two at same time, in that case
> > >> GPL could prevail! :-)
> > >>
> > >>>> The License war is terrible, I think there is not a single license
> > >>>> compatible with all, even CC0, BSD or public domain cannot be used
> as
> > >>>> freely was we think. Many countries law, companies, patents, etc,
> > >>>> involved.
> > >>> BSD and MIT seems most liberal. Apache also clarifies patent stuff.
> > >>> GPL is viral and enforces GPL on all further works.
> > >>>
> > >>> As above, if the case is "A AND B" then GPL taints everything to be
> GPL
> > >>> too..?
> > >>>
> > >> See, the Author defines it as dual license (so yes A "AND" B), but if
> > >> project X uses license A it will stick to license A instead of B. If
> > >> project Y uses license B it will stick with B instead of A.
> > >>
> > >> So, more precisely it is A XOR B.
> > >>
> > >>> Quck search (query: gpl vs apache vs bsd license) resulting quote :
> > >>>
> > >>> "
> > >>> I will mainly talk about the practical consequences and not go into
> > >>> the nitty gritty. By GPL compatible I mean that a GPL project can use
> > >>> your code (NOT you can use GPL code).
> > >>>
> > >>> The MIT and BSD 2 clause licenses have similar requirements: keep the
> > >>> license file. The BSD 3 clause license adds a term to the BSD 2 that
> > >>> prevents someone from claiming false endorsement. These three
> licenses
> > >>> are compatible with GPLv2 and v3.
> > >>>
> > >>> The Apache 2.0 license requires you to keep the license file, the
> > >>> NOTICE file if there is one, and show notice for modified files. It
> > >>> also addresses some patent-related issues, so companies use it a lot.
> > >>> It is compatible with GPLv3 but not v2 (due to the patent clauses).
> > >>>
> > >>> There is also an old BSD license that has an clause related to
> > >>> advertising. Don't use it because it's not GPL compatible.
> > >>>
> > >>> In practice, the ecosystem you are working with has a license that is
> > >>> used most often to begin with, and I would stick to that. For
> example,
> > >>> I would use MIT for Nodejs packages. If you are working on an
> > >>> application, some would recommend using the Apache 2.0 license
> because
> > >>> it covers patent issues.
> > >>> "
> > >>>
> > >>> And some references:
> > >>>
> > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License
> > >>>
> > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
> > >>>
> > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
> > >>>
> > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
> > >>>
> > >>> :-)
> > >>>
> > >> Yes, BTW the original author said the driver will be offered as dual
> > >> license (GPL "AND" / "OR" / "XOR" / "however" Apache) so I think it
> > >> fear to use under Apache License
> > >>
> > >> I don't know how we could fix this Catch 22, maybe the Author could
> > >> release two separated versions?
> > >>
> > >> BR,
> > >>
> > >> Alan
> > >>
> >
>
> --
> *MoTeC Pty Ltd*
>
> 121 Merrindale Drive
> Croydon South 3136
> Victoria Australia
> *T: *61 3 9761 5050
> *W: *www.motec.com.au <https://www.motec.com.au/>
>
>
> --
> <http://www.facebook.com/motec.global>
> <http://www.youtube.com/user/MoTeCAustralia>
> <https://www.instagram.com/motec_global/>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/motec-global>
> <https://twitter.com/motec_global>
>
>
> --
> <https://www.professionalmotorsport-expo.com/en/register.php>
>
> --
>
>
> Disclaimer Notice: This message, including any attachments, contains
> confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose
> and
> is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you should
> delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
> message or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited.
>
Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
Posted by Andrew Dennison <an...@motec.com.au>.
Hi all,
Wow, i didn't think we were doing anything other than trying to help
facilitate adding more driver support. The easiest approach seems to be to
get the os independent components licenced by the original authors in a
compatible way so we can move forward with the technical element.
My recollection is the license A OR B proposal came from a document on the
Apache website we were pointed to on this mailing list a few months ago,
but maybe I'm mistaken.
Is this really the first time this has been debated? There seemed to be
examples of this exact model when a had a quick look around.
I just want to find out if there is a way forward compatible with Apache
requirements: IANAL and don't want to speculate on the way forward, just
thought it was easier to ask.
Can anyone in the project help facilitate an "official" answer from Apache?
Kind regards,
Andrew
PS: the driver authors are not subscribed, so probably haven't seen this
recently debate. I'll coordinate with them if there is a way forward.
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023, 6:49 PM Sebastien Lorquet <se...@lorquet.fr>
wrote:
> Are you seriously taking legal advice, on behalf of an apache project,
> from a generative language model?
>
> Sebastien
>
>
> Le 17/10/2023 à 22:22, Alan C. Assis a écrit :
> > Oops, it was: you cannot enforce both at same time.
> >
> > Actually I think I was wrong (not about enforcing), but the main issue
> > about Dual license is how the contributions will evolve.
> >
> > I decided to ask about it to ChatGPT:
> >
> > "
> > Question: if an open-source software X was released as dual license
> > GPL and Apache License, can we used it in our project NuttX that used
> > Apache License?
> >
> > If an open-source software X is released under both the GPL (GNU
> > General Public License) and the Apache License, you generally have
> > some flexibility in how you can use it in your project NuttX, which is
> > licensed under the Apache License. However, there are important
> > considerations and potential complications to keep in mind:
> >
> > Compatibility of Licenses:
> > The Apache License and the GPL are generally considered to be
> > compatible licenses. This means that you can include Apache-licensed
> > code in a GPL-licensed project and vice versa without violating the
> > terms of either license.
> >
> > License Choice:
> > When incorporating dual-licensed code into your project, you
> > have a choice in which license to follow. If you choose the Apache
> > License, you can do so without any issues, as the Apache License is
> > permissive. However, if you choose the GPL, you must comply with the
> > terms of the GPL, which may include open-sourcing your entire project
> > under the GPL.
> >
> > Potential GPL Implications:
> > Using the GPL-licensed version of software X may have
> > implications for the licensing of your entire project. The GPL is a
> > more restrictive license that requires you to release your entire
> > project under the GPL if you use GPL-licensed code. This could affect
> > how you distribute your project and any proprietary components within
> > it.
> >
> > Be Careful with License Mixing:
> > It's important to carefully manage the licensing of each
> > component within your project. Ensure that you clearly identify and
> > understand the licensing terms of each component and only include code
> > in your project that is compatible with the licensing choices you want
> > to make.
> >
> > Consult Legal Advice:
> > Dual licensing can be complex, and the specific terms of
> > software X may have variations or nuances that need legal
> > interpretation. It's advisable to consult with a legal expert who is
> > well-versed in open source licensing if you have any doubts or
> > concerns.
> >
> > In summary, you can use the dual-licensed software X in your project
> > NuttX that is under the Apache License. However, you need to make a
> > conscious choice about which license to follow for the code from
> > software X, and be aware of the potential implications, especially if
> > you decide to use the GPL-licensed version, as it may affect the
> > licensing of your entire project. Consulting with a legal expert is a
> > wise step when dealing with complex licensing issues.
> > "
> >
> > So, we are back to square one!
> >
> > BR,
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > On 10/17/23, Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Tomek,
> >>
> >> On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
> >>>> To be honest I don't see a big issue of a driver as dual license, we
> >>>> already have SocketCAN and other drivers as dual license (GPL and
> >>>> Apache, BSD and Apache, etc). The original Author said the want is to
> >>>> be released as dual license: A or license B.
> >>> Isn't is more A AND B ?
> >>>
> >>> A OR B == I want A but not B so I stick to A ? :-P
> >>>
> >> No, because technically you can enforce two at same time, in that case
> >> GPL could prevail! :-)
> >>
> >>>> The License war is terrible, I think there is not a single license
> >>>> compatible with all, even CC0, BSD or public domain cannot be used as
> >>>> freely was we think. Many countries law, companies, patents, etc,
> >>>> involved.
> >>> BSD and MIT seems most liberal. Apache also clarifies patent stuff.
> >>> GPL is viral and enforces GPL on all further works.
> >>>
> >>> As above, if the case is "A AND B" then GPL taints everything to be GPL
> >>> too..?
> >>>
> >> See, the Author defines it as dual license (so yes A "AND" B), but if
> >> project X uses license A it will stick to license A instead of B. If
> >> project Y uses license B it will stick with B instead of A.
> >>
> >> So, more precisely it is A XOR B.
> >>
> >>> Quck search (query: gpl vs apache vs bsd license) resulting quote :
> >>>
> >>> "
> >>> I will mainly talk about the practical consequences and not go into
> >>> the nitty gritty. By GPL compatible I mean that a GPL project can use
> >>> your code (NOT you can use GPL code).
> >>>
> >>> The MIT and BSD 2 clause licenses have similar requirements: keep the
> >>> license file. The BSD 3 clause license adds a term to the BSD 2 that
> >>> prevents someone from claiming false endorsement. These three licenses
> >>> are compatible with GPLv2 and v3.
> >>>
> >>> The Apache 2.0 license requires you to keep the license file, the
> >>> NOTICE file if there is one, and show notice for modified files. It
> >>> also addresses some patent-related issues, so companies use it a lot.
> >>> It is compatible with GPLv3 but not v2 (due to the patent clauses).
> >>>
> >>> There is also an old BSD license that has an clause related to
> >>> advertising. Don't use it because it's not GPL compatible.
> >>>
> >>> In practice, the ecosystem you are working with has a license that is
> >>> used most often to begin with, and I would stick to that. For example,
> >>> I would use MIT for Nodejs packages. If you are working on an
> >>> application, some would recommend using the Apache 2.0 license because
> >>> it covers patent issues.
> >>> "
> >>>
> >>> And some references:
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
> >>>
> >>> :-)
> >>>
> >> Yes, BTW the original author said the driver will be offered as dual
> >> license (GPL "AND" / "OR" / "XOR" / "however" Apache) so I think it
> >> fear to use under Apache License
> >>
> >> I don't know how we could fix this Catch 22, maybe the Author could
> >> release two separated versions?
> >>
> >> BR,
> >>
> >> Alan
> >>
>
--
*MoTeC Pty Ltd*
121 Merrindale Drive
Croydon South 3136
Victoria Australia
*T: *61 3 9761 5050
*W: *www.motec.com.au <https://www.motec.com.au/>
--
<http://www.facebook.com/motec.global>
<http://www.youtube.com/user/MoTeCAustralia>
<https://www.instagram.com/motec_global/>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/motec-global>
<https://twitter.com/motec_global>
--
<https://www.professionalmotorsport-expo.com/en/register.php>
--
Disclaimer Notice: This message, including any attachments, contains
confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose and
is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you should
delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited.
Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
Posted by Sebastien Lorquet <se...@lorquet.fr>.
Hi Alan,
Sure, I understand the motivation.
Still, as entertaining as it might be, let's not forget (and not just on
this point) that language models are generally unreliable. So I would
tend to be cautious before calling language model output a "point of view".
Whatever, this is not the most important aspect of the discussion.
Best regards,
Sebastien
Le 19/10/2023 à 17:14, Alan C. Assis a écrit :
> Hi Sebastien,
>
> I think you missed the point: we are not asking legal advice for an
> AI, we are just trying to find other point of view that it could have
> found "chewing" millions of thread about license issues.
>
> BR,
>
> Alan
>
> On 10/19/23, Sebastien Lorquet <se...@lorquet.fr> wrote:
>> Are you seriously taking legal advice, on behalf of an apache project,
>> from a generative language model?
>>
>> Sebastien
>>
>>
>> Le 17/10/2023 à 22:22, Alan C. Assis a écrit :
>>> Oops, it was: you cannot enforce both at same time.
>>>
>>> Actually I think I was wrong (not about enforcing), but the main issue
>>> about Dual license is how the contributions will evolve.
>>>
>>> I decided to ask about it to ChatGPT:
>>>
>>> "
>>> Question: if an open-source software X was released as dual license
>>> GPL and Apache License, can we used it in our project NuttX that used
>>> Apache License?
>>>
>>> If an open-source software X is released under both the GPL (GNU
>>> General Public License) and the Apache License, you generally have
>>> some flexibility in how you can use it in your project NuttX, which is
>>> licensed under the Apache License. However, there are important
>>> considerations and potential complications to keep in mind:
>>>
>>> Compatibility of Licenses:
>>> The Apache License and the GPL are generally considered to be
>>> compatible licenses. This means that you can include Apache-licensed
>>> code in a GPL-licensed project and vice versa without violating the
>>> terms of either license.
>>>
>>> License Choice:
>>> When incorporating dual-licensed code into your project, you
>>> have a choice in which license to follow. If you choose the Apache
>>> License, you can do so without any issues, as the Apache License is
>>> permissive. However, if you choose the GPL, you must comply with the
>>> terms of the GPL, which may include open-sourcing your entire project
>>> under the GPL.
>>>
>>> Potential GPL Implications:
>>> Using the GPL-licensed version of software X may have
>>> implications for the licensing of your entire project. The GPL is a
>>> more restrictive license that requires you to release your entire
>>> project under the GPL if you use GPL-licensed code. This could affect
>>> how you distribute your project and any proprietary components within
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Be Careful with License Mixing:
>>> It's important to carefully manage the licensing of each
>>> component within your project. Ensure that you clearly identify and
>>> understand the licensing terms of each component and only include code
>>> in your project that is compatible with the licensing choices you want
>>> to make.
>>>
>>> Consult Legal Advice:
>>> Dual licensing can be complex, and the specific terms of
>>> software X may have variations or nuances that need legal
>>> interpretation. It's advisable to consult with a legal expert who is
>>> well-versed in open source licensing if you have any doubts or
>>> concerns.
>>>
>>> In summary, you can use the dual-licensed software X in your project
>>> NuttX that is under the Apache License. However, you need to make a
>>> conscious choice about which license to follow for the code from
>>> software X, and be aware of the potential implications, especially if
>>> you decide to use the GPL-licensed version, as it may affect the
>>> licensing of your entire project. Consulting with a legal expert is a
>>> wise step when dealing with complex licensing issues.
>>> "
>>>
>>> So, we are back to square one!
>>>
>>> BR,
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> On 10/17/23, Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Tomek,
>>>>
>>>> On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
>>>>>> To be honest I don't see a big issue of a driver as dual license, we
>>>>>> already have SocketCAN and other drivers as dual license (GPL and
>>>>>> Apache, BSD and Apache, etc). The original Author said the want is to
>>>>>> be released as dual license: A or license B.
>>>>> Isn't is more A AND B ?
>>>>>
>>>>> A OR B == I want A but not B so I stick to A ? :-P
>>>>>
>>>> No, because technically you can enforce two at same time, in that case
>>>> GPL could prevail! :-)
>>>>
>>>>>> The License war is terrible, I think there is not a single license
>>>>>> compatible with all, even CC0, BSD or public domain cannot be used as
>>>>>> freely was we think. Many countries law, companies, patents, etc,
>>>>>> involved.
>>>>> BSD and MIT seems most liberal. Apache also clarifies patent stuff.
>>>>> GPL is viral and enforces GPL on all further works.
>>>>>
>>>>> As above, if the case is "A AND B" then GPL taints everything to be GPL
>>>>> too..?
>>>>>
>>>> See, the Author defines it as dual license (so yes A "AND" B), but if
>>>> project X uses license A it will stick to license A instead of B. If
>>>> project Y uses license B it will stick with B instead of A.
>>>>
>>>> So, more precisely it is A XOR B.
>>>>
>>>>> Quck search (query: gpl vs apache vs bsd license) resulting quote :
>>>>>
>>>>> "
>>>>> I will mainly talk about the practical consequences and not go into
>>>>> the nitty gritty. By GPL compatible I mean that a GPL project can use
>>>>> your code (NOT you can use GPL code).
>>>>>
>>>>> The MIT and BSD 2 clause licenses have similar requirements: keep the
>>>>> license file. The BSD 3 clause license adds a term to the BSD 2 that
>>>>> prevents someone from claiming false endorsement. These three licenses
>>>>> are compatible with GPLv2 and v3.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Apache 2.0 license requires you to keep the license file, the
>>>>> NOTICE file if there is one, and show notice for modified files. It
>>>>> also addresses some patent-related issues, so companies use it a lot.
>>>>> It is compatible with GPLv3 but not v2 (due to the patent clauses).
>>>>>
>>>>> There is also an old BSD license that has an clause related to
>>>>> advertising. Don't use it because it's not GPL compatible.
>>>>>
>>>>> In practice, the ecosystem you are working with has a license that is
>>>>> used most often to begin with, and I would stick to that. For example,
>>>>> I would use MIT for Nodejs packages. If you are working on an
>>>>> application, some would recommend using the Apache 2.0 license because
>>>>> it covers patent issues.
>>>>> "
>>>>>
>>>>> And some references:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
>>>>>
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, BTW the original author said the driver will be offered as dual
>>>> license (GPL "AND" / "OR" / "XOR" / "however" Apache) so I think it
>>>> fear to use under Apache License
>>>>
>>>> I don't know how we could fix this Catch 22, maybe the Author could
>>>> release two separated versions?
>>>>
>>>> BR,
>>>>
>>>> Alan
>>>>
Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
Posted by "Alan C. Assis" <ac...@gmail.com>.
Hi Sebastien,
I think you missed the point: we are not asking legal advice for an
AI, we are just trying to find other point of view that it could have
found "chewing" millions of thread about license issues.
BR,
Alan
On 10/19/23, Sebastien Lorquet <se...@lorquet.fr> wrote:
> Are you seriously taking legal advice, on behalf of an apache project,
> from a generative language model?
>
> Sebastien
>
>
> Le 17/10/2023 à 22:22, Alan C. Assis a écrit :
>> Oops, it was: you cannot enforce both at same time.
>>
>> Actually I think I was wrong (not about enforcing), but the main issue
>> about Dual license is how the contributions will evolve.
>>
>> I decided to ask about it to ChatGPT:
>>
>> "
>> Question: if an open-source software X was released as dual license
>> GPL and Apache License, can we used it in our project NuttX that used
>> Apache License?
>>
>> If an open-source software X is released under both the GPL (GNU
>> General Public License) and the Apache License, you generally have
>> some flexibility in how you can use it in your project NuttX, which is
>> licensed under the Apache License. However, there are important
>> considerations and potential complications to keep in mind:
>>
>> Compatibility of Licenses:
>> The Apache License and the GPL are generally considered to be
>> compatible licenses. This means that you can include Apache-licensed
>> code in a GPL-licensed project and vice versa without violating the
>> terms of either license.
>>
>> License Choice:
>> When incorporating dual-licensed code into your project, you
>> have a choice in which license to follow. If you choose the Apache
>> License, you can do so without any issues, as the Apache License is
>> permissive. However, if you choose the GPL, you must comply with the
>> terms of the GPL, which may include open-sourcing your entire project
>> under the GPL.
>>
>> Potential GPL Implications:
>> Using the GPL-licensed version of software X may have
>> implications for the licensing of your entire project. The GPL is a
>> more restrictive license that requires you to release your entire
>> project under the GPL if you use GPL-licensed code. This could affect
>> how you distribute your project and any proprietary components within
>> it.
>>
>> Be Careful with License Mixing:
>> It's important to carefully manage the licensing of each
>> component within your project. Ensure that you clearly identify and
>> understand the licensing terms of each component and only include code
>> in your project that is compatible with the licensing choices you want
>> to make.
>>
>> Consult Legal Advice:
>> Dual licensing can be complex, and the specific terms of
>> software X may have variations or nuances that need legal
>> interpretation. It's advisable to consult with a legal expert who is
>> well-versed in open source licensing if you have any doubts or
>> concerns.
>>
>> In summary, you can use the dual-licensed software X in your project
>> NuttX that is under the Apache License. However, you need to make a
>> conscious choice about which license to follow for the code from
>> software X, and be aware of the potential implications, especially if
>> you decide to use the GPL-licensed version, as it may affect the
>> licensing of your entire project. Consulting with a legal expert is a
>> wise step when dealing with complex licensing issues.
>> "
>>
>> So, we are back to square one!
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> On 10/17/23, Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Tomek,
>>>
>>> On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
>>>>> To be honest I don't see a big issue of a driver as dual license, we
>>>>> already have SocketCAN and other drivers as dual license (GPL and
>>>>> Apache, BSD and Apache, etc). The original Author said the want is to
>>>>> be released as dual license: A or license B.
>>>> Isn't is more A AND B ?
>>>>
>>>> A OR B == I want A but not B so I stick to A ? :-P
>>>>
>>> No, because technically you can enforce two at same time, in that case
>>> GPL could prevail! :-)
>>>
>>>>> The License war is terrible, I think there is not a single license
>>>>> compatible with all, even CC0, BSD or public domain cannot be used as
>>>>> freely was we think. Many countries law, companies, patents, etc,
>>>>> involved.
>>>> BSD and MIT seems most liberal. Apache also clarifies patent stuff.
>>>> GPL is viral and enforces GPL on all further works.
>>>>
>>>> As above, if the case is "A AND B" then GPL taints everything to be GPL
>>>> too..?
>>>>
>>> See, the Author defines it as dual license (so yes A "AND" B), but if
>>> project X uses license A it will stick to license A instead of B. If
>>> project Y uses license B it will stick with B instead of A.
>>>
>>> So, more precisely it is A XOR B.
>>>
>>>> Quck search (query: gpl vs apache vs bsd license) resulting quote :
>>>>
>>>> "
>>>> I will mainly talk about the practical consequences and not go into
>>>> the nitty gritty. By GPL compatible I mean that a GPL project can use
>>>> your code (NOT you can use GPL code).
>>>>
>>>> The MIT and BSD 2 clause licenses have similar requirements: keep the
>>>> license file. The BSD 3 clause license adds a term to the BSD 2 that
>>>> prevents someone from claiming false endorsement. These three licenses
>>>> are compatible with GPLv2 and v3.
>>>>
>>>> The Apache 2.0 license requires you to keep the license file, the
>>>> NOTICE file if there is one, and show notice for modified files. It
>>>> also addresses some patent-related issues, so companies use it a lot.
>>>> It is compatible with GPLv3 but not v2 (due to the patent clauses).
>>>>
>>>> There is also an old BSD license that has an clause related to
>>>> advertising. Don't use it because it's not GPL compatible.
>>>>
>>>> In practice, the ecosystem you are working with has a license that is
>>>> used most often to begin with, and I would stick to that. For example,
>>>> I would use MIT for Nodejs packages. If you are working on an
>>>> application, some would recommend using the Apache 2.0 license because
>>>> it covers patent issues.
>>>> "
>>>>
>>>> And some references:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>> Yes, BTW the original author said the driver will be offered as dual
>>> license (GPL "AND" / "OR" / "XOR" / "however" Apache) so I think it
>>> fear to use under Apache License
>>>
>>> I don't know how we could fix this Catch 22, maybe the Author could
>>> release two separated versions?
>>>
>>> BR,
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>
Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
Posted by Sebastien Lorquet <se...@lorquet.fr>.
Are you seriously taking legal advice, on behalf of an apache project,
from a generative language model?
Sebastien
Le 17/10/2023 à 22:22, Alan C. Assis a écrit :
> Oops, it was: you cannot enforce both at same time.
>
> Actually I think I was wrong (not about enforcing), but the main issue
> about Dual license is how the contributions will evolve.
>
> I decided to ask about it to ChatGPT:
>
> "
> Question: if an open-source software X was released as dual license
> GPL and Apache License, can we used it in our project NuttX that used
> Apache License?
>
> If an open-source software X is released under both the GPL (GNU
> General Public License) and the Apache License, you generally have
> some flexibility in how you can use it in your project NuttX, which is
> licensed under the Apache License. However, there are important
> considerations and potential complications to keep in mind:
>
> Compatibility of Licenses:
> The Apache License and the GPL are generally considered to be
> compatible licenses. This means that you can include Apache-licensed
> code in a GPL-licensed project and vice versa without violating the
> terms of either license.
>
> License Choice:
> When incorporating dual-licensed code into your project, you
> have a choice in which license to follow. If you choose the Apache
> License, you can do so without any issues, as the Apache License is
> permissive. However, if you choose the GPL, you must comply with the
> terms of the GPL, which may include open-sourcing your entire project
> under the GPL.
>
> Potential GPL Implications:
> Using the GPL-licensed version of software X may have
> implications for the licensing of your entire project. The GPL is a
> more restrictive license that requires you to release your entire
> project under the GPL if you use GPL-licensed code. This could affect
> how you distribute your project and any proprietary components within
> it.
>
> Be Careful with License Mixing:
> It's important to carefully manage the licensing of each
> component within your project. Ensure that you clearly identify and
> understand the licensing terms of each component and only include code
> in your project that is compatible with the licensing choices you want
> to make.
>
> Consult Legal Advice:
> Dual licensing can be complex, and the specific terms of
> software X may have variations or nuances that need legal
> interpretation. It's advisable to consult with a legal expert who is
> well-versed in open source licensing if you have any doubts or
> concerns.
>
> In summary, you can use the dual-licensed software X in your project
> NuttX that is under the Apache License. However, you need to make a
> conscious choice about which license to follow for the code from
> software X, and be aware of the potential implications, especially if
> you decide to use the GPL-licensed version, as it may affect the
> licensing of your entire project. Consulting with a legal expert is a
> wise step when dealing with complex licensing issues.
> "
>
> So, we are back to square one!
>
> BR,
>
> Alan
>
> On 10/17/23, Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Tomek,
>>
>> On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
>>>> To be honest I don't see a big issue of a driver as dual license, we
>>>> already have SocketCAN and other drivers as dual license (GPL and
>>>> Apache, BSD and Apache, etc). The original Author said the want is to
>>>> be released as dual license: A or license B.
>>> Isn't is more A AND B ?
>>>
>>> A OR B == I want A but not B so I stick to A ? :-P
>>>
>> No, because technically you can enforce two at same time, in that case
>> GPL could prevail! :-)
>>
>>>> The License war is terrible, I think there is not a single license
>>>> compatible with all, even CC0, BSD or public domain cannot be used as
>>>> freely was we think. Many countries law, companies, patents, etc,
>>>> involved.
>>> BSD and MIT seems most liberal. Apache also clarifies patent stuff.
>>> GPL is viral and enforces GPL on all further works.
>>>
>>> As above, if the case is "A AND B" then GPL taints everything to be GPL
>>> too..?
>>>
>> See, the Author defines it as dual license (so yes A "AND" B), but if
>> project X uses license A it will stick to license A instead of B. If
>> project Y uses license B it will stick with B instead of A.
>>
>> So, more precisely it is A XOR B.
>>
>>> Quck search (query: gpl vs apache vs bsd license) resulting quote :
>>>
>>> "
>>> I will mainly talk about the practical consequences and not go into
>>> the nitty gritty. By GPL compatible I mean that a GPL project can use
>>> your code (NOT you can use GPL code).
>>>
>>> The MIT and BSD 2 clause licenses have similar requirements: keep the
>>> license file. The BSD 3 clause license adds a term to the BSD 2 that
>>> prevents someone from claiming false endorsement. These three licenses
>>> are compatible with GPLv2 and v3.
>>>
>>> The Apache 2.0 license requires you to keep the license file, the
>>> NOTICE file if there is one, and show notice for modified files. It
>>> also addresses some patent-related issues, so companies use it a lot.
>>> It is compatible with GPLv3 but not v2 (due to the patent clauses).
>>>
>>> There is also an old BSD license that has an clause related to
>>> advertising. Don't use it because it's not GPL compatible.
>>>
>>> In practice, the ecosystem you are working with has a license that is
>>> used most often to begin with, and I would stick to that. For example,
>>> I would use MIT for Nodejs packages. If you are working on an
>>> application, some would recommend using the Apache 2.0 license because
>>> it covers patent issues.
>>> "
>>>
>>> And some references:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>> Yes, BTW the original author said the driver will be offered as dual
>> license (GPL "AND" / "OR" / "XOR" / "however" Apache) so I think it
>> fear to use under Apache License
>>
>> I don't know how we could fix this Catch 22, maybe the Author could
>> release two separated versions?
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> Alan
>>
Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
Posted by Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info>.
I don't trust that ChatGPT stuff it is known to give false answers :-P :-P
Quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License#Compatibility
"The Apache Software Foundation and the Free Software Foundation agree
that the Apache License 2.0 is a free software license, compatible
with the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 3, meaning that code
under GPLv3 and Apache License 2.0 can be combined, as long as the
resulting software is licensed under the GPLv3.
The Free Software Foundation considers all versions of the Apache
License to be incompatible with the previous GPL versions 1 and 2.
Furthermore, it considers Apache License versions before 2.0
incompatible with GPLv3. Because of version 2.0's patent license
requirements, the Free Software Foundation recommends it over other
non-copyleft licenses. If the Apache License with the LLVM exception
is used, then it is compatible with GPLv2."
This is the first time I can see a software released under dual
contradicting open source licenses. Usually it is commercial and GPL
for non-commercial (i.e. Qt). Interesting :-)
I hope it turns out that code can be used along Apache 2.0 license..
but running away from GPL is impossible.. its not quite freedom when
you have no choice.. but to avoid it :-)
--
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
Posted by "Alan C. Assis" <ac...@gmail.com>.
Oops, it was: you cannot enforce both at same time.
Actually I think I was wrong (not about enforcing), but the main issue
about Dual license is how the contributions will evolve.
I decided to ask about it to ChatGPT:
"
Question: if an open-source software X was released as dual license
GPL and Apache License, can we used it in our project NuttX that used
Apache License?
If an open-source software X is released under both the GPL (GNU
General Public License) and the Apache License, you generally have
some flexibility in how you can use it in your project NuttX, which is
licensed under the Apache License. However, there are important
considerations and potential complications to keep in mind:
Compatibility of Licenses:
The Apache License and the GPL are generally considered to be
compatible licenses. This means that you can include Apache-licensed
code in a GPL-licensed project and vice versa without violating the
terms of either license.
License Choice:
When incorporating dual-licensed code into your project, you
have a choice in which license to follow. If you choose the Apache
License, you can do so without any issues, as the Apache License is
permissive. However, if you choose the GPL, you must comply with the
terms of the GPL, which may include open-sourcing your entire project
under the GPL.
Potential GPL Implications:
Using the GPL-licensed version of software X may have
implications for the licensing of your entire project. The GPL is a
more restrictive license that requires you to release your entire
project under the GPL if you use GPL-licensed code. This could affect
how you distribute your project and any proprietary components within
it.
Be Careful with License Mixing:
It's important to carefully manage the licensing of each
component within your project. Ensure that you clearly identify and
understand the licensing terms of each component and only include code
in your project that is compatible with the licensing choices you want
to make.
Consult Legal Advice:
Dual licensing can be complex, and the specific terms of
software X may have variations or nuances that need legal
interpretation. It's advisable to consult with a legal expert who is
well-versed in open source licensing if you have any doubts or
concerns.
In summary, you can use the dual-licensed software X in your project
NuttX that is under the Apache License. However, you need to make a
conscious choice about which license to follow for the code from
software X, and be aware of the potential implications, especially if
you decide to use the GPL-licensed version, as it may affect the
licensing of your entire project. Consulting with a legal expert is a
wise step when dealing with complex licensing issues.
"
So, we are back to square one!
BR,
Alan
On 10/17/23, Alan C. Assis <ac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Tomek,
>
> On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
>>> To be honest I don't see a big issue of a driver as dual license, we
>>> already have SocketCAN and other drivers as dual license (GPL and
>>> Apache, BSD and Apache, etc). The original Author said the want is to
>>> be released as dual license: A or license B.
>>
>> Isn't is more A AND B ?
>>
>> A OR B == I want A but not B so I stick to A ? :-P
>>
>
> No, because technically you can enforce two at same time, in that case
> GPL could prevail! :-)
>
>>> The License war is terrible, I think there is not a single license
>>> compatible with all, even CC0, BSD or public domain cannot be used as
>>> freely was we think. Many countries law, companies, patents, etc,
>>> involved.
>>
>> BSD and MIT seems most liberal. Apache also clarifies patent stuff.
>> GPL is viral and enforces GPL on all further works.
>>
>> As above, if the case is "A AND B" then GPL taints everything to be GPL
>> too..?
>>
>
> See, the Author defines it as dual license (so yes A "AND" B), but if
> project X uses license A it will stick to license A instead of B. If
> project Y uses license B it will stick with B instead of A.
>
> So, more precisely it is A XOR B.
>
>> Quck search (query: gpl vs apache vs bsd license) resulting quote :
>>
>> "
>> I will mainly talk about the practical consequences and not go into
>> the nitty gritty. By GPL compatible I mean that a GPL project can use
>> your code (NOT you can use GPL code).
>>
>> The MIT and BSD 2 clause licenses have similar requirements: keep the
>> license file. The BSD 3 clause license adds a term to the BSD 2 that
>> prevents someone from claiming false endorsement. These three licenses
>> are compatible with GPLv2 and v3.
>>
>> The Apache 2.0 license requires you to keep the license file, the
>> NOTICE file if there is one, and show notice for modified files. It
>> also addresses some patent-related issues, so companies use it a lot.
>> It is compatible with GPLv3 but not v2 (due to the patent clauses).
>>
>> There is also an old BSD license that has an clause related to
>> advertising. Don't use it because it's not GPL compatible.
>>
>> In practice, the ecosystem you are working with has a license that is
>> used most often to begin with, and I would stick to that. For example,
>> I would use MIT for Nodejs packages. If you are working on an
>> application, some would recommend using the Apache 2.0 license because
>> it covers patent issues.
>> "
>>
>> And some references:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
>>
>> :-)
>>
>
> Yes, BTW the original author said the driver will be offered as dual
> license (GPL "AND" / "OR" / "XOR" / "however" Apache) so I think it
> fear to use under Apache License
>
> I don't know how we could fix this Catch 22, maybe the Author could
> release two separated versions?
>
> BR,
>
> Alan
>
Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
Posted by "Alan C. Assis" <ac...@gmail.com>.
Hi Tomek,
On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:
>> To be honest I don't see a big issue of a driver as dual license, we
>> already have SocketCAN and other drivers as dual license (GPL and
>> Apache, BSD and Apache, etc). The original Author said the want is to
>> be released as dual license: A or license B.
>
> Isn't is more A AND B ?
>
> A OR B == I want A but not B so I stick to A ? :-P
>
No, because technically you can enforce two at same time, in that case
GPL could prevail! :-)
>> The License war is terrible, I think there is not a single license
>> compatible with all, even CC0, BSD or public domain cannot be used as
>> freely was we think. Many countries law, companies, patents, etc,
>> involved.
>
> BSD and MIT seems most liberal. Apache also clarifies patent stuff.
> GPL is viral and enforces GPL on all further works.
>
> As above, if the case is "A AND B" then GPL taints everything to be GPL
> too..?
>
See, the Author defines it as dual license (so yes A "AND" B), but if
project X uses license A it will stick to license A instead of B. If
project Y uses license B it will stick with B instead of A.
So, more precisely it is A XOR B.
> Quck search (query: gpl vs apache vs bsd license) resulting quote :
>
> "
> I will mainly talk about the practical consequences and not go into
> the nitty gritty. By GPL compatible I mean that a GPL project can use
> your code (NOT you can use GPL code).
>
> The MIT and BSD 2 clause licenses have similar requirements: keep the
> license file. The BSD 3 clause license adds a term to the BSD 2 that
> prevents someone from claiming false endorsement. These three licenses
> are compatible with GPLv2 and v3.
>
> The Apache 2.0 license requires you to keep the license file, the
> NOTICE file if there is one, and show notice for modified files. It
> also addresses some patent-related issues, so companies use it a lot.
> It is compatible with GPLv3 but not v2 (due to the patent clauses).
>
> There is also an old BSD license that has an clause related to
> advertising. Don't use it because it's not GPL compatible.
>
> In practice, the ecosystem you are working with has a license that is
> used most often to begin with, and I would stick to that. For example,
> I would use MIT for Nodejs packages. If you are working on an
> application, some would recommend using the Apache 2.0 license because
> it covers patent issues.
> "
>
> And some references:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
>
> :-)
>
Yes, BTW the original author said the driver will be offered as dual
license (GPL "AND" / "OR" / "XOR" / "however" Apache) so I think it
fear to use under Apache License
I don't know how we could fix this Catch 22, maybe the Author could
release two separated versions?
BR,
Alan
Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
Posted by Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info>.
> To be honest I don't see a big issue of a driver as dual license, we
> already have SocketCAN and other drivers as dual license (GPL and
> Apache, BSD and Apache, etc). The original Author said the want is to
> be released as dual license: A or license B.
Isn't is more A AND B ?
A OR B == I want A but not B so I stick to A ? :-P
> The License war is terrible, I think there is not a single license
> compatible with all, even CC0, BSD or public domain cannot be used as
> freely was we think. Many countries law, companies, patents, etc,
> involved.
BSD and MIT seems most liberal. Apache also clarifies patent stuff.
GPL is viral and enforces GPL on all further works.
As above, if the case is "A AND B" then GPL taints everything to be GPL too..?
Quck search (query: gpl vs apache vs bsd license) resulting quote :
"
I will mainly talk about the practical consequences and not go into
the nitty gritty. By GPL compatible I mean that a GPL project can use
your code (NOT you can use GPL code).
The MIT and BSD 2 clause licenses have similar requirements: keep the
license file. The BSD 3 clause license adds a term to the BSD 2 that
prevents someone from claiming false endorsement. These three licenses
are compatible with GPLv2 and v3.
The Apache 2.0 license requires you to keep the license file, the
NOTICE file if there is one, and show notice for modified files. It
also addresses some patent-related issues, so companies use it a lot.
It is compatible with GPLv3 but not v2 (due to the patent clauses).
There is also an old BSD license that has an clause related to
advertising. Don't use it because it's not GPL compatible.
In practice, the ecosystem you are working with has a license that is
used most often to begin with, and I would stick to that. For example,
I would use MIT for Nodejs packages. If you are working on an
application, some would recommend using the Apache 2.0 license because
it covers patent issues.
"
And some references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
:-)
--
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
Posted by "Alan C. Assis" <ac...@gmail.com>.
Hi Christofer,
On 10/17/23, Christofer Dutz <cd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just came across this thread while reviewing your last board report.
> In the PLC4X project we have CAN drivers and we Support C in PLC4C.
> However nobody has ported CAN driver to C yet (But thanks to our code
> generation it should be quite simple).
>
> Perhaps switching to a fully Apache Licensed driver could help resolve this
> issue?
>
I think it is not possible because the driver also needs to support
Linux kernel.
To be honest I don't see a big issue of a driver as dual license, we
already have SocketCAN and other drivers as dual license (GPL and
Apache, BSD and Apache, etc). The original Author said the want is to
be released as dual license: A or license B.
The License war is terrible, I think there is not a single license
compatible with all, even CC0, BSD or public domain cannot be used as
freely was we think. Many countries law, companies, patents, etc,
involved.
BR,
Alan