Hi Pavel, I understand your point. And in fact I think the issue is not your contribution itself, but the future contribution from developers of RTEMS and Linux that are using GPL. Those developers couldn't be comfortable contributing their improvements back to other OS that don't use GPL license.
To be honest, I think it would have been better if the driver was using a very permissive license like BSD (no patent related as Apache and no restrictions like GPL) and we could include it by adding the info in the NOTICE file. On the other hand I don't know if your driver requires some "GPL" function from Linux kernel, in that case defining that your module is BSD forbids it from using some kernel functions. Best Regards, On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:11 PM Pavel Pisa <ppisa4li...@pikron.com> wrote: > Hello Alan and others, > > On 11/10/23, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > > HI, > > > > If it is dual (or more) licensed as Apache 2.0 or GPL then you can take > > the most permissive license, i.e Apache 2.0 and include it in an ASF > > project under that license. > > thanks for the discussion but I have had no doubts about > above statement from the discussion start. > > Main question is if it is acceptable for NuttX to include > files with complete SPDX-License-Identifier which we > consider to use for result of years of our work > > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0 > > The reason why it would be better for us is that if we work > on the NuttX variant we can reuse our and possibly others > contribution in that variant even for Linux kernel and RTEMS. > > For sure, there is no obstacle and rule to prevent remove > of some of the licensed from the code anytime later. > > But solving and maintaining separately two or three driver branches > incompatible by licenses and permanently checking if there > is not some contribution of somebody other whom rights > can be violated, is additional burden. > > And at least I am quite loaded and I am not sure if I will > be motivated enough to work and waste time on three variants > of code. Especially when it seems to be arranged by some others > that it will stay as my enthusiast work and those who have and will > have income from my investment shows habits like from Gold rush > time. > > I have moved my focus to prepare new QtRvSim release now (L2 cache, > RISC-V ACLINT, MTIMER, SSWI & Co) and new open source motion controllers, > that are planned to be NuttX based as well. I have lot of work on my > motion controllers delivered and successfully used at ESA projects as > well, so I do not monitor NuttX list too much these times. We run > RTEMS CAN subsystem development now, probably CTU CAN FD would be the > first supported target but it is not so sure now. > > Best wishes, > > Pavel > -- > Pavel Pisa > > phone: +420 603531357 > e-mail: p...@cmp.felk.cvut.cz > Department of Control Engineering FEE CVUT > Karlovo namesti 13, 121 35, Prague 2 > university: http://control.fel.cvut.cz/ > personal: http://cmp.felk.cvut.cz/~pisa > company: https://pikron.com/ PiKRON s.r.o. > Kankovskeho 1235, 182 00 Praha 8, Czech Republic > projects: https://www.openhub.net/accounts/ppisa > social: https://social.kernel.org/ppisa > CAN related:http://canbus.pages.fel.cvut.cz/ > RISC-V education: https://comparch.edu.cvut.cz/ > Open Technologies Research Education and Exchange Services > https://gitlab.fel.cvut.cz/otrees/org/-/wikis/home >
