On 2023/09/07 14:32:40 "Alan C. Assis" wrote:
I think GPL code shouldn't be included directly, but I think it is
fair to allow GPL code be downloaded using the building system case
user selected it.
That's pretty close to what ASF policy is, so that's a great start. As
a reminder, in terms of artifacts checked into any ASF repository, ASF
policy is what matters, not legal details about licenses.
ASF projects may *not* include or distribute Category X components
(which includes GPL and related licenses) anywhere:
https://apache.org/legal/resolved#prohibited
ASF projects may rely on the user downloading or otherwise obtaining
themselves GPL-like software when needed for optional use cases:
https://apache.org/legal/resolved#optional
The rest of the FAQs there are worth reading for more of the rationale.
Some time ago I suggested to create a tainted variable in the building
system to track it, after I suggested that a friend of mine from
Espressif added it to Zephyr.
Doing this way will avoid someone saying that wasn't aware of BSD,
MIT, GPL or other license included in their final binary.
Exactly! Principle of least surprise: when someone gets software from
the ASF, they must *never* be surprised to find GPL software inside.
They might be asked to install - themselves, separately - common build
tools or other components if they want to use optional features. But
users must always be able to download, modify, and fully use the primary
use cases of an ASF product under permissive style licenses completely.
I would highly suggest that this issue and steps the project is taking
to evaluate (and fix, if needed) any GPL code here be included in your
next board report.
Thanks all for working on this!
--
- Shane
Member
The Apache Software Foundation
BR,
Alan
On 9/7/23, Peter van der Perk <pe...@nxp.com> wrote:
> There was a discussion when the kconfig GPL switch got introduced.
> The libcanutils code from my perspective would be interpreted as BSD-3.
> But it was decided otherwise
> https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/833#issuecomment-918875006
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 3:50 PM
> To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
> Subject: [EXT] Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
>
> On 9/6/2023 5:15 AM, alin.jerpe...@sony.com wrote:
>> There are known CAN sources that have GPL code and have been
>> documented in the LICENSE File
>>
>> All this code is protected under the include GPL code config option
>> and disabled by default
>>
>> Is this approach approved or we should completely remove the GPL code from
>> NuttX?
>
> My understanding is that there can be no GPL code in any way in the Apache
> project repository.
>
> In the case of the CANFD code, it has a dual license, GPL or BSD-3. I don't
> recall all of the details but, as a podling at the time, we discussed this
> pretty thoroughly with our mentors and the inclusion of the dual licensed
> third party code was found acceptable. Justin McClean was involved in this
> discussion. I briefly looked for the e-mail thread that addressed this, but
> I could not find it so my recollection might be faulty,.
>
> Any pure GPL should be removed in my opinion.
>
>
