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 <andrew.denni...@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 > <andrew.denni...@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 <bash...@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.denni...@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 <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. >>> > >>> >> > > -- > *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. >
