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 <sebast...@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 <acas...@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.
