exe in repo

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

Just noticed this in the repo:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mynewt-newt/blob/master/newtvm/newtvm.exe

It is intended that this go in the source release? That would be an issue and a 
source release can’t contain any executables or jars or the like.

Thanks,
Justin

RAT (release audit tool)

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

It quite likely that anyone reviewing the release on the incubator will use:
1) Apache rat [1]
2) Compliance Rocks 

We might want to put a rat exclusion file together to help people and cut down 
of the number of false positives it currently generates.

At the very least yo shovel run the tools over the source release so are 
prepared for any issue that they might bring up.

Thanks,
Justin


1. http://creadur.apache.org/rat/apache-rat/
2. http://compliance.rocks

Re: LICENSE and NOTICE contents / headers

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

Also a few extra LICENSE file sin tadpole?

./hw/bsp/native/LICENSE
./libs/os/LICENSE
./libs/testutil/LICENSE

Thanks,
Justin

Re: LICENSE and NOTICE contents / headers

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

I’m still noticing a few files with multiple license headers in tadpole:
./libs/os/src/arch/cortex_m0/m0/HAL_CM0.s
./libs/os/src/arch/cortex_m0/m0/SVC_Table.s
./libs/os/src/arch/cortex_m4/m4/HAL_CM4.s
./libs/os/src/arch/cortex_m4/m4/SVC_Table.s
./libs/os/src/os_mbuf.c
./libs/util/src/base64.c

I think the apache header should be removed from these files.

(May be a couple of others I missed).

Thanks,
Justin

Re: LICENSE and NOTICE contents / headers

[Justin Mclean]

HI,

> OK, I believe I have removed the Apache license from all the
> "otherwise-licensed" files, and added corresponding pointers to the
> larva LICENSE file.

Still missing a few things I’ll add them.

>  Larva's LICENSE file has become quite a monster, I’m afraid.

Yep but I’ve seen worse. It's all permissive so that all good.

> I have replaced this file with a more recent version from STM. The new
> version has a BSD license.

Even better.

> There is one nagging issue, however.  Larva includes some files from
> CMSIS-CORE which lack any license information.

This is a problem, is their any way we can’t find out what license they under 
form the copyright date?

Otherwise it could be assumed we don’t have permission to use and distribute 
them.

> We will fix this issue, but I am hoping we can take care of this between the 
> first and second release.
> In the meantime, I have added a note about this to the larva LICENSE file.

May be some objection on the incubator list, but I think if you say you’ll fix 
in in the next release that would be fine.

IMO but INAL given the files are BSD licensed the risk is very low that there 
would be any objections.

So I whet ahead and changed:
- Added a few missing items
- Replace “Tcl/Tk license” with BSD style
- Removed reference to 4 clause BSD as the 4 clause has been rescinded for the 
files in question. The 4 clause BSD is not compatible with Apache.
- No real need for the eLua git hash
- Added pointer to LICENSE files were needed

Feel free to make further changes/corrections if you need.

Also looks like we have a few too many LICENSE files:
./fs/nffs/LICENSE
./hw/bsp/native/LICENSE
./libs/bootutil/LICENSE
./libs/console/LICENSE
./libs/os/LICENSE
./libs/testutil/LICENSE
./project/bin2img/LICENSE

Mind removing these?

I did notice a few files that I don;t think are listed in LICENSE (all BSD):
./hw/bsp/nrf51dk/src/arch/cortex_m0/gcc_startup_nrf51.s
./hw/bsp/nrf51dk/src/system_nrf51.c
./hw/bsp/nrf51dk-16kbram/src/arch/cortex_m0/gcc_startup_nrf51.s
./hw/bsp/nrf51dk-16kbram/src/system_nrf51.c
./hw/bsp/nrf52pdk/src/arch/cortex_m4/gcc_startup_nrf52.s
./hw/bsp/nrf52pdk/src/system_nrf52.c

Not a huge issue.

And I may of found another issue - do we know the ip provenience of these files:
./hw/bsp/nrf51dk/boot-nrf51dk.ld
./hw/bsp/nrf51dk/nrf51dk.ld
./hw/bsp/nrf51dk/nrf51dk_no_boot.ld
./hw/bsp/nrf51dk-16kbram/boot-nrf51dk-16kbram.ld
./hw/bsp/nrf51dk-16kbram/nrf51dk-16kbram.ld
./hw/bsp/nrf51dk-16kbram/nrf51dk-16kbram_no_boot.ld
./hw/bsp/nrf52pdk/nrf52pdk.ld

If they come from Sourcery G++ that cruel be an issue, if Nordic Semiconductor 
wrote then for use with the  Sourcery G++ compiler that’s probably ok.

Thanks,
Justin