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-disc...@apache.org ? BR, Alan On 11/9/23, Andrew Dennison <andrew.denni...@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 <acas...@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 <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. >> > >> > > -- > *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. >
