Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Andrew Dennison]

Hi Alan,

Yes - I can view that list and have successfully subscribed.

Kind regards,

Andrew Dennison
Chief Architect and Hardware Team Lead


On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 at 03:17, Alan C. Assis  wrote:

> 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  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  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  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
> >> > 
> >> > 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
> >> >>  >> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> There is way 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:
> >> >>> > 

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Alan C. Assis]

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  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  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  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
>> > 
>> > 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
>> >> > >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> There is way 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 

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Andrew Dennison]

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  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  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
> > 
> > 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  >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> There is way 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 

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Alan C. Assis]

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  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
> 
> 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 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There is way 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 
>>> > 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 

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Andrew Dennison]

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 
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 
> wrote:
>
>> There is way 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 
>> > 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 

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Andrew Dennison]

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 
wrote:

> There is way 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 
> > 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 

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Sebastien Lorquet]

Hi Alan,

Sure, I understand the motivation.

Still, as entertaining as it might be, let's not forget (and not just on 
this point) that language models are generally unreliable. So I would 
tend to be cautious before calling language model output a "point of view".


Whatever, this is not the most important aspect of the discussion.

Best regards,

Sebastien

Le 19/10/2023 à 17:14, Alan C. Assis a écrit :

Hi Sebastien,

I think you missed the point: we are not asking legal advice for an
AI, we are just trying to find other point of view that it could have
found "chewing" millions of thread about license issues.

BR,

Alan

On 10/19/23, Sebastien Lorquet  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  wrote:

Hi Tomek,

On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO  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

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Alan C. Assis]

Hi Sebastien,

I think you missed the point: we are not asking legal advice for an
AI, we are just trying to find other point of view that it could have
found "chewing" millions of thread about license issues.

BR,

Alan

On 10/19/23, Sebastien Lorquet  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  wrote:
>>> Hi Tomek,
>>>
>>> On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO  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 

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Brennan Ashton]

There is way 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 
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 
> 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  wrote:
> > >> Hi Tomek,
> > >>
> > >> On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO  wrote:
> >  To be honest I don't see a big issue of a driver as dual license, we
> >  

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Alin Jerpelea]

Hi all,



I am not a lawyer and understand the multi license code and it is not easy.



Here are my thoughts:

  1. The GPL v2 license is incompatible with Apache v2 license

https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

  2. Software contamination

https://www.mend.io/wp-content/media/2021/04/a-survival-guide-to-using-gpl.pdf

in a monolithic build I interpret the contamination as mandatory release of
all code (as copyleft), that has been incorporated in the contaminated item
(in our case the NuttX image). Please comment if you feel otherwise



I think that the GPL code isolation is not a good approach because the
developer that enables that code should know license implications and take
full responsibility of the implications of enabling GPL code in their local
build



In my opinion

  1. License what can be re licensed as a pure Apache code

  2. The GPL code should stay in a separate git (like will all planned from
the beginning) and not even be downloaded together with NuttX and apps



Best regards

Alin

On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 11:55 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 
> 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 

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Andrew Dennison]

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 
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  wrote:
> >> Hi Tomek,
> >>
> >> On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO  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 

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Sebastien Lorquet]

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  wrote:

Hi Tomek,

On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO  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 

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Tomek CEDRO]

I don't trust that ChatGPT stuff it is known to give false answers :-P :-P

Quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License#Compatibility

"The Apache Software Foundation and the Free Software Foundation agree
that the Apache License 2.0 is a free software license, compatible
with the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 3, meaning that code
under GPLv3 and Apache License 2.0 can be combined, as long as the
resulting software is licensed under the GPLv3.

The Free Software Foundation considers all versions of the Apache
License to be incompatible with the previous GPL versions 1 and 2.
Furthermore, it considers Apache License versions before 2.0
incompatible with GPLv3. Because of version 2.0's patent license
requirements, the Free Software Foundation recommends it over other
non-copyleft licenses. If the Apache License with the LLVM exception
is used, then it is compatible with GPLv2."

This is the first time I can see a software released under dual
contradicting open source licenses. Usually it is commercial and GPL
for non-commercial (i.e. Qt). Interesting :-)

I hope it turns out that code can be used along Apache 2.0 license..
but running away from GPL is impossible.. its not quite freedom when
you have no choice.. but to avoid it :-)

-- 
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Alan C. Assis]

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  wrote:
> Hi Tomek,
>
> On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO  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 

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Alan C. Assis]

Hi Tomek,

On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO  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

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Tomek CEDRO]

> 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

> 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..?

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

:-)

-- 
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Alan C. Assis]

Hi Christofer,

On 10/17/23, Christofer Dutz  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just came across this thread while reviewing your last board report.
> In the PLC4X project we have CAN drivers and we Support C in PLC4C.
> However nobody has ported CAN driver to C yet (But thanks to our code
> generation it should be quite simple).
>
> Perhaps switching to a fully Apache Licensed driver could help resolve this
> issue?
>

I think it is not possible because the driver also needs to support
Linux kernel.

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.

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.

BR,

Alan

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Christofer Dutz]

Hi all,

Just came across this thread while reviewing your last board report. 
In the PLC4X project we have CAN drivers and we Support C in PLC4C.
However nobody has ported CAN driver to C yet (But thanks to our code 
generation it should be quite simple).

Perhaps switching to a fully Apache Licensed driver could help resolve this 
issue?

Chris


On 2023/09/13 10:10:01 Andrew Dennison wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2023, 9:07 PM Shane Curcuru  wrote:
> 
> > On 2023/08/09 00:20:42 Andrew Dennison wrote:
> > > Hi Nuttx Dev,
> > >
> > > We are negotiating with the authors of the linux device driver for the
> > CTU
> > > CAN FD IP core to it re-licenced from GPL to so the driver can then be
> > > ported to Nuttx.
> >
> > Just a reminder: Apache policy prohibits GPL code, or GPL-derived code,
> > from being included in any ASF project:
> >
> >https://apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x
> >
> > If there is *any* question about the license of incoming code, then you
> > should ask the Legal Affairs Committee for advice, after reviewing the
> > ASF policy on source headers:
> >
> >
> Hi Shane,
> 
> This is understood: as per teh original email we contacted all the
> copyright holders of the out-of-tree linux driver and they have all agreed
> to change the code to reference several licences:
> 
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 19:48, Pavel Pisa  wrote:
> 
> >
> > OK, consider driver code license and NuttX compatible.
> > We need to discuss what will be actual variant and file
> > headers text. I suggest
> >
> > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0
> 
> 
> This complies with my reading of a link provided by Brennan:
> 
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 10:43, Brennan Ashton 
> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> This is covered here
> > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
> >
> 
>  Hopefully it is apparent that we are doing everything to ensure we can get
> this driver integrated into nuttx so others can benefit. We could just
> "scratch our own itch" and keep it external. That is less work, but we are
> actively contributing to Nuttx (eg riscv, kernel mode enhancements and
> litex platform support) as we see the value in doing this.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> Andrew
> 
> -- 
> *MoTeC Pty Ltd*
> 
> 121 Merrindale Drive
> Croydon South 3136
> Victoria Australia
> *T: *61 3 9761 5050
> *W: *www.motec.com.au 
> 
> 
> -- 
>   
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>  
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 

Re: [EXT] Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Pavel Pisa]

Hello Greg and others,

On Thursday 14 of September 2023 17:19:16 Gregory Nutt wrote:
> On 9/14/2023 8:52 AM, Alan C. Assis wrote:
> > I think the authors of the driver can release the source code using
> > two or more licenses.
> > cd c
> > We already have an example of it in NuttX: SocketCAN
> >
> > Since they add the OR license clause it is fine.
>
> The part that bothers me is that I cannot tell which license applies to
> the code from looking at the SPDX.  If I am contemplating using NuttX, I
> could not say which license is selected in this context.  I suppose the
> authoritative document is the SPDX specification, but this does not make
> anything clear to me:
> https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2-draft/SPDX-license-expressions/#d42-dis
>junctive-or-operator.
>
> apps/LICENSE lists this license for canutils/candump, cansend, and
> libcanutils, but does not clarify the OR condition.
>
> I would be hesitant to use the code in my project because of this doubt.

The problem is that if other license options are not included
then we will be (in the fact) forced to setup independent developers
for each target system and check that we have not mixed any
substantial enhancements for which we do not negotiate
Contributor License Agreement to inappropriate project.

But yes, if it is required by NuttX, we do it that way
and I will clone myself into different license domains virtually.
We have rights to adjust licenses for code written by us
even in the future anyway and it is quite probable that there
are not so much external contributors or that they provide
agreemet for porting into other open source kernels.
But it complicates things in general.

For sure, when there s OR in license, we cannot insist
on keeping all variants anyway so there is no kind of
guarantee that we do not get into this time wasting state
as well. But broader licensing is simplification at least 
for the start and when generally cooperative attitude
is on all sides then it is probable that it can stay
that way. See SocketCAN

  
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/net/can/af_can.c?h=v6.6-rc2

which is favorable from Volkswagen to make its core reusable
in another operating systems including NuttX for closed source
projects when BSD is accepted. 

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

Re: [EXT] Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Gregory Nutt]

On 9/14/2023 8:52 AM, Alan C. Assis wrote:

I think the authors of the driver can release the source code using
two or more licenses.
cd c
We already have an example of it in NuttX: SocketCAN

Since they add the OR license clause it is fine.


The part that bothers me is that I cannot tell which license applies to 
the code from looking at the SPDX.  If I am contemplating using NuttX, I 
could not say which license is selected in this context.  I suppose the 
authoritative document is the SPDX specification, but this does not make 
anything clear to me: 
https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2-draft/SPDX-license-expressions/#d42-disjunctive-or-operator.


apps/LICENSE lists this license for canutils/candump, cansend, and 
libcanutils, but does not clarify the OR condition.


I would be hesitant to use the code in my project because of this doubt.

Re: [EXT] Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Alan C. Assis]

I think the authors of the driver can release the source code using
two or more licenses.

We already have an example of it in NuttX: SocketCAN

Since they add the OR license clause it is fine.

BR,

Alan

On 9/14/23, Alin Jerpelea  wrote:
> Hi Pavel,
>
> small oftopic regarding the license  header:
>
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.en.html
>
> "Apache 2.0, has patent clauses which are incompatible with GPL version 2;
> since I think those patent clauses are good, I made GPL version 3
> compatible with them."
>
> Best regards
> Alin
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Sept 2023, 16:06 Pavel Pisa,  wrote:
>
>> Hello Alin, Brennan and Andrew,
>>
>> On Tuesday 12 of September 2023 19:39:31 Alin Jerpelea wrote:
>> > from my knowledge the GPL code is disabled by default and users MUST
>> > manually enable it
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 6:26 PM Brennan Ashton <
>> bash...@brennanashton.com>
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> > > I'm very confused as to the issue here. This is not GPL code, this is
>> > > code that is dual licensed. I think two totally different topics are
>> > > being conflated here.
>>
>> Excuse of jumping late into discussion. I have not noticed this thread
>> and I am not sure about t outcome. I tried to be clean in the offlist
>> discussion but I am not sure still for some nithes details from NuttX
>> side.
>>
>> Our code is GPL licensed now but all copyright holders agree
>> on providing it under license fully compatible with NuttX and RTEMS
>> mainlines.
>>
>> I have offered and discussed the license
>>
>> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause OR
>> Apache-2.0
>>
>> with keeping of the list of the authors and reference to the Czech
>> Technical
>> University at start of files.
>>
>> If the whole list of the licenses is kept, then it allows mutual
>> enhancements
>> between driver code forks for individual systems. As I describe
>> elsewhere,
>> I understand and agree that driver should be readable and with minimum
>> adaptation/compatibility layers for each kernel even that it means
>> additional
>> effort on our side.
>>
>> The question to the NuttX stewards is wheather
>>
>> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause OR
>> Apache-2.0
>>
>> line/license s acceptable for manline.
>> If not, then we leave Apache-2.0 alone and try to track permission of
>> other
>> outside (non-CTU) contributors to reuse their possible code enhancements
>> under other two licenses.
>>
>> 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
>>
>

Re: [EXT] Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Alin Jerpelea]

Hi Pavel,

small oftopic regarding the license  header:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.en.html

"Apache 2.0, has patent clauses which are incompatible with GPL version 2;
since I think those patent clauses are good, I made GPL version 3
compatible with them."

Best regards
Alin


On Thu, 14 Sept 2023, 16:06 Pavel Pisa,  wrote:

> Hello Alin, Brennan and Andrew,
>
> On Tuesday 12 of September 2023 19:39:31 Alin Jerpelea wrote:
> > from my knowledge the GPL code is disabled by default and users MUST
> > manually enable it
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 6:26 PM Brennan Ashton <
> bash...@brennanashton.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > I'm very confused as to the issue here. This is not GPL code, this is
> > > code that is dual licensed. I think two totally different topics are
> > > being conflated here.
>
> Excuse of jumping late into discussion. I have not noticed this thread
> and I am not sure about t outcome. I tried to be clean in the offlist
> discussion but I am not sure still for some nithes details from NuttX
> side.
>
> Our code is GPL licensed now but all copyright holders agree
> on providing it under license fully compatible with NuttX and RTEMS
> mainlines.
>
> I have offered and discussed the license
>
> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0
>
> with keeping of the list of the authors and reference to the Czech
> Technical
> University at start of files.
>
> If the whole list of the licenses is kept, then it allows mutual
> enhancements
> between driver code forks for individual systems. As I describe elsewhere,
> I understand and agree that driver should be readable and with minimum
> adaptation/compatibility layers for each kernel even that it means
> additional
> effort on our side.
>
> The question to the NuttX stewards is wheather
>
> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0
>
> line/license s acceptable for manline.
> If not, then we leave Apache-2.0 alone and try to track permission of other
> outside (non-CTU) contributors to reuse their possible code enhancements
> under other two licenses.
>
> 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
>

Re: [EXT] Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Pavel Pisa]

Hello Alin, Brennan and Andrew,

On Tuesday 12 of September 2023 19:39:31 Alin Jerpelea wrote:
> from my knowledge the GPL code is disabled by default and users MUST
> manually enable it
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 6:26 PM Brennan Ashton 
>
> wrote:
> > I'm very confused as to the issue here. This is not GPL code, this is
> > code that is dual licensed. I think two totally different topics are
> > being conflated here.

Excuse of jumping late into discussion. I have not noticed this thread
and I am not sure about t outcome. I tried to be clean in the offlist
discussion but I am not sure still for some nithes details from NuttX
side.

Our code is GPL licensed now but all copyright holders agree
on providing it under license fully compatible with NuttX and RTEMS
mainlines.

I have offered and discussed the license

// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0

with keeping of the list of the authors and reference to the Czech Technical 
University at start of files.

If the whole list of the licenses is kept, then it allows mutual enhancements
between driver code forks for individual systems. As I describe elsewhere,
I understand and agree that driver should be readable and with minimum
adaptation/compatibility layers for each kernel even that it means additional
effort on our side.

The question to the NuttX stewards is wheather

// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0

line/license s acceptable for manline.
If not, then we leave Apache-2.0 alone and try to track permission of other
outside (non-CTU) contributors to reuse their possible code enhancements
under other two licenses.

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

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Andrew Dennison]

On Wed, Sep 6, 2023, 9:07 PM Shane Curcuru  wrote:

> On 2023/08/09 00:20:42 Andrew Dennison wrote:
> > Hi Nuttx Dev,
> >
> > We are negotiating with the authors of the linux device driver for the
> CTU
> > CAN FD IP core to it re-licenced from GPL to so the driver can then be
> > ported to Nuttx.
>
> Just a reminder: Apache policy prohibits GPL code, or GPL-derived code,
> from being included in any ASF project:
>
>https://apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x
>
> If there is *any* question about the license of incoming code, then you
> should ask the Legal Affairs Committee for advice, after reviewing the
> ASF policy on source headers:
>
>
Hi Shane,

This is understood: as per teh original email we contacted all the
copyright holders of the out-of-tree linux driver and they have all agreed
to change the code to reference several licences:

On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 19:48, Pavel Pisa  wrote:

>
> OK, consider driver code license and NuttX compatible.
> We need to discuss what will be actual variant and file
> headers text. I suggest
>
> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0


This complies with my reading of a link provided by Brennan:

On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 10:43, Brennan Ashton 
wrote:

...

This is covered here
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>

 Hopefully it is apparent that we are doing everything to ensure we can get
this driver integrated into nuttx so others can benefit. We could just
"scratch our own itch" and keep it external. That is less work, but we are
actively contributing to Nuttx (eg riscv, kernel mode enhancements and
litex platform support) as we see the value in doing this.

Kind Regards,

Andrew

-- 
*MoTeC Pty Ltd*

121 Merrindale Drive
Croydon South 3136
Victoria Australia
*T: *61 3 9761 5050
*W: *www.motec.com.au 


-- 
  
 
 
 



-- 
 

-- 


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.

Re: Re: [EXT] Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Alin Jerpelea]

@Brennan Ashton 
we have a release scheduled for this month which is now blocked due to
concerns.

@Shane
from my knowledge the GPL code is disabled by default and users MUST
manually enable it

It would be nice to know if we can continue with the release (since the
interface change was reverted) or if we have to postpone the release and
start code analysis on the whole project.

//Alin

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 6:26 PM Brennan Ashton 
wrote:

> I'm very confused as to the issue here. This is not GPL code, this is code
> that is dual licensed. I think two totally different topics are being
> conflated here.
>
> I have code that was part of the dual licensing of the CAN code being
> discussed here (outside of NuttX) and the whole point of dual licensing it
> was to allow this usage.
>
> As far as I am concerned there was an issue where some code was incorrectly
> included to provide a Linux compatible interface and that was identified
> and removed.
>
> Shane can you please be very clear on what you are saying here and your
> concern? I have read the pages you linked in detail and you will find I
> have linked them in the past when license questions have come up for third
> party code.
>
> --Brennan
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023, 9:12 AM Shane Curcuru  wrote:
>
> > On 2023/09/07 14:32:40 "Alan C. Assis" wrote:
> > > I think GPL code shouldn't be included directly, but I think it is
> > > fair to allow GPL code be downloaded using the building system case
> > > user selected it.
> >
> > That's pretty close to what ASF policy is, so that's a great start.  As
> > a reminder, in terms of artifacts checked into any ASF repository, ASF
> > policy is what matters, not legal details about licenses.
> >
> > ASF projects may *not* include or distribute Category X components
> > (which includes GPL and related licenses) anywhere:
> >
> >https://apache.org/legal/resolved#prohibited
> >
> > ASF projects may rely on the user downloading or otherwise obtaining
> > themselves GPL-like software when needed for optional use cases:
> >
> >https://apache.org/legal/resolved#optional
> >
> > The rest of the FAQs there are worth reading for more of the rationale.
> >
> > > Some time ago I suggested to create a tainted variable in the building
> > > system to track it, after I suggested that a friend of mine from
> > > Espressif added it to Zephyr.
> > >
> > > Doing this way will avoid someone saying that wasn't aware of BSD,
> > > MIT, GPL or other license included in their final binary.
> >
> > Exactly!  Principle of least surprise: when someone gets software from
> > the ASF, they must *never* be surprised to find GPL software inside.
> > They might be asked to install - themselves, separately - common build
> > tools or other components if they want to use optional features.  But
> > users must always be able to download, modify, and fully use the primary
> > use cases of an ASF product under permissive style licenses completely.
> >
> > I would highly suggest that this issue and steps the project is taking
> > to evaluate (and fix, if needed) any GPL code here be included in your
> > next board report.
> >
> > Thanks all for working on this!
> >
> > --
> > - Shane
> >Member
> >The Apache Software Foundation
> >
> > > BR,
> > >
> > > Alan
> > >
> > > On 9/7/23, Peter van der Perk  wrote:
> > > > There was a discussion when the kconfig GPL switch got introduced.
> > > > The libcanutils code from my perspective would be interpreted as
> BSD-3.
> > > > But it was decided otherwise
> > > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/833#issuecomment-918875006
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Gregory Nutt 
> > > > Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 3:50 PM
> > > > To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
> > > > Subject: [EXT] Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
> > > >
> > > > On 9/6/2023 5:15 AM, alin.jerpe...@sony.com wrote:
> > > >> There are known CAN sources that have GPL code and have been
> > > >> documented in the LICENSE File
> > > >>
> > > >> All this code is protected under the include GPL code config option
> > > >> and disabled by default
> > > >>
> > > >> Is this approach approved or we should completely remove the GPL
> code
> > from
> > > >> NuttX?
> > > >
> > > > My understanding is that there can be no GPL code in any way in the
> > Apache
> > > > project repository.
> > > >
> > > > In the case of the CANFD code, it has a dual license, GPL or BSD-3.
> I
> > don't
> > > > recall all of the details but, as a podling at the time, we discussed
> > this
> > > > pretty thoroughly with our mentors and the inclusion of the dual
> > licensed
> > > > third party code was found acceptable.  Justin McClean was involved
> in
> > this
> > > > discussion.  I briefly looked for the e-mail thread that addressed
> > this, but
> > > > I could not find it so my recollection might be faulty,.
> > > >
> > > > Any pure GPL should be removed in my opinion.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Re: [EXT] Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Brennan Ashton]

I'm very confused as to the issue here. This is not GPL code, this is code
that is dual licensed. I think two totally different topics are being
conflated here.

I have code that was part of the dual licensing of the CAN code being
discussed here (outside of NuttX) and the whole point of dual licensing it
was to allow this usage.

As far as I am concerned there was an issue where some code was incorrectly
included to provide a Linux compatible interface and that was identified
and removed.

Shane can you please be very clear on what you are saying here and your
concern? I have read the pages you linked in detail and you will find I
have linked them in the past when license questions have come up for third
party code.

--Brennan

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023, 9:12 AM Shane Curcuru  wrote:

> On 2023/09/07 14:32:40 "Alan C. Assis" wrote:
> > I think GPL code shouldn't be included directly, but I think it is
> > fair to allow GPL code be downloaded using the building system case
> > user selected it.
>
> That's pretty close to what ASF policy is, so that's a great start.  As
> a reminder, in terms of artifacts checked into any ASF repository, ASF
> policy is what matters, not legal details about licenses.
>
> ASF projects may *not* include or distribute Category X components
> (which includes GPL and related licenses) anywhere:
>
>https://apache.org/legal/resolved#prohibited
>
> ASF projects may rely on the user downloading or otherwise obtaining
> themselves GPL-like software when needed for optional use cases:
>
>https://apache.org/legal/resolved#optional
>
> The rest of the FAQs there are worth reading for more of the rationale.
>
> > Some time ago I suggested to create a tainted variable in the building
> > system to track it, after I suggested that a friend of mine from
> > Espressif added it to Zephyr.
> >
> > Doing this way will avoid someone saying that wasn't aware of BSD,
> > MIT, GPL or other license included in their final binary.
>
> Exactly!  Principle of least surprise: when someone gets software from
> the ASF, they must *never* be surprised to find GPL software inside.
> They might be asked to install - themselves, separately - common build
> tools or other components if they want to use optional features.  But
> users must always be able to download, modify, and fully use the primary
> use cases of an ASF product under permissive style licenses completely.
>
> I would highly suggest that this issue and steps the project is taking
> to evaluate (and fix, if needed) any GPL code here be included in your
> next board report.
>
> Thanks all for working on this!
>
> --
> - Shane
>Member
>The Apache Software Foundation
>
> > BR,
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > On 9/7/23, Peter van der Perk  wrote:
> > > There was a discussion when the kconfig GPL switch got introduced.
> > > The libcanutils code from my perspective would be interpreted as BSD-3.
> > > But it was decided otherwise
> > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/833#issuecomment-918875006
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Gregory Nutt 
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 3:50 PM
> > > To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
> > > Subject: [EXT] Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
> > >
> > > On 9/6/2023 5:15 AM, alin.jerpe...@sony.com wrote:
> > >> There are known CAN sources that have GPL code and have been
> > >> documented in the LICENSE File
> > >>
> > >> All this code is protected under the include GPL code config option
> > >> and disabled by default
> > >>
> > >> Is this approach approved or we should completely remove the GPL code
> from
> > >> NuttX?
> > >
> > > My understanding is that there can be no GPL code in any way in the
> Apache
> > > project repository.
> > >
> > > In the case of the CANFD code, it has a dual license, GPL or BSD-3.  I
> don't
> > > recall all of the details but, as a podling at the time, we discussed
> this
> > > pretty thoroughly with our mentors and the inclusion of the dual
> licensed
> > > third party code was found acceptable.  Justin McClean was involved in
> this
> > > discussion.  I briefly looked for the e-mail thread that addressed
> this, but
> > > I could not find it so my recollection might be faulty,.
> > >
> > > Any pure GPL should be removed in my opinion.
> > >
> > >
> >
>

RE: Re: [EXT] Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Shane Curcuru]

On 2023/09/07 14:32:40 "Alan C. Assis" wrote:

I think GPL code shouldn't be included directly, but I think it is
fair to allow GPL code be downloaded using the building system case
user selected it.


That's pretty close to what ASF policy is, so that's a great start.  As 
a reminder, in terms of artifacts checked into any ASF repository, ASF 
policy is what matters, not legal details about licenses.


ASF projects may *not* include or distribute Category X components 
(which includes GPL and related licenses) anywhere:


  https://apache.org/legal/resolved#prohibited

ASF projects may rely on the user downloading or otherwise obtaining 
themselves GPL-like software when needed for optional use cases:


  https://apache.org/legal/resolved#optional

The rest of the FAQs there are worth reading for more of the rationale.


Some time ago I suggested to create a tainted variable in the building
system to track it, after I suggested that a friend of mine from
Espressif added it to Zephyr.

Doing this way will avoid someone saying that wasn't aware of BSD,
MIT, GPL or other license included in their final binary.


Exactly!  Principle of least surprise: when someone gets software from 
the ASF, they must *never* be surprised to find GPL software inside. 
They might be asked to install - themselves, separately - common build 
tools or other components if they want to use optional features.  But 
users must always be able to download, modify, and fully use the primary 
use cases of an ASF product under permissive style licenses completely.


I would highly suggest that this issue and steps the project is taking 
to evaluate (and fix, if needed) any GPL code here be included in your 
next board report.


Thanks all for working on this!

--
- Shane
  Member
  The Apache Software Foundation


BR,

Alan

On 9/7/23, Peter van der Perk  wrote:
> There was a discussion when the kconfig GPL switch got introduced.
> The libcanutils code from my perspective would be interpreted as BSD-3.
> But it was decided otherwise
> https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/833#issuecomment-918875006
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gregory Nutt 
> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 3:50 PM
> To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
> Subject: [EXT] Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
>
> On 9/6/2023 5:15 AM, alin.jerpe...@sony.com wrote:
>> There are known CAN sources that have GPL code and have been
>> documented in the LICENSE File
>>
>> All this code is protected under the include GPL code config option
>> and disabled by default
>>
>> Is this approach approved or we should completely remove the GPL code from
>> NuttX?
>
> My understanding is that there can be no GPL code in any way in the Apache
> project repository.
>
> In the case of the CANFD code, it has a dual license, GPL or BSD-3.  I don't
> recall all of the details but, as a podling at the time, we discussed this
> pretty thoroughly with our mentors and the inclusion of the dual licensed
> third party code was found acceptable.  Justin McClean was involved in this
> discussion.  I briefly looked for the e-mail thread that addressed this, but
> I could not find it so my recollection might be faulty,.
>
> Any pure GPL should be removed in my opinion.
>
>

Re: [EXT] Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Alan C. Assis]

On 9/7/23, Brennan Ashton  wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2023, 9:01 AM Gregory Nutt  wrote:
>
>>
>> > I think GPL code shouldn't be included directly, but I think it is
>> > fair to allow GPL code be downloaded using the building system case
>> > user selected it.
>>
>> We created this directory specifically to hold forks of GPL code that
>> can be used with NuttX:  https://github.com/NuttX .  I am not sure of
>> the current state; it hasn't been used or maintained.
>>
>
> I maintain that it should be deleted.
>

I think it could used as a mirror, including external tar balls that
NuttX uses and eventually could disappear from their original
site/repositories.

BTW, while we don't do it, it should be nice to have some info there
pointing to the github.com/apache/nuttx

BR,

Alan

Re: [EXT] Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Brennan Ashton]

On Thu, Sep 7, 2023, 9:01 AM Gregory Nutt  wrote:

>
> > I think GPL code shouldn't be included directly, but I think it is
> > fair to allow GPL code be downloaded using the building system case
> > user selected it.
>
> We created this directory specifically to hold forks of GPL code that
> can be used with NuttX:  https://github.com/NuttX .  I am not sure of
> the current state; it hasn't been used or maintained.
>

I maintain that it should be deleted.

>

Re: [EXT] Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Gregory Nutt]

I think GPL code shouldn't be included directly, but I think it is
fair to allow GPL code be downloaded using the building system case
user selected it.


We created this directory specifically to hold forks of GPL code that 
can be used with NuttX:  https://github.com/NuttX .  I am not sure of 
the current state; it hasn't been used or maintained.

Re: [EXT] Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Alan C. Assis]

I think GPL code shouldn't be included directly, but I think it is
fair to allow GPL code be downloaded using the building system case
user selected it.

Some time ago I suggested to create a tainted variable in the building
system to track it, after I suggested that a friend of mine from
Espressif added it to Zephyr.

Doing this way will avoid someone saying that wasn't aware of BSD,
MIT, GPL or other license included in their final binary.

BR,

Alan

On 9/7/23, Peter van der Perk  wrote:
> There was a discussion when the kconfig GPL switch got introduced.
> The libcanutils code from my perspective would be interpreted as BSD-3.
> But it was decided otherwise
> https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/833#issuecomment-918875006
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gregory Nutt 
> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 3:50 PM
> To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
> Subject: [EXT] Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
>
> On 9/6/2023 5:15 AM, alin.jerpe...@sony.com wrote:
>> There are known CAN sources that have GPL code and have been
>> documented in the LICENSE File
>>
>> All this code is protected under the include GPL code config option
>> and disabled by default
>>
>> Is this approach approved or we should completely remove the GPL code from
>> NuttX?
>
> My understanding is that there can be no GPL code in any way in the Apache
> project repository.
>
> In the case of the CANFD code, it has a dual license, GPL or BSD-3.  I don't
> recall all of the details but, as a podling at the time, we discussed this
> pretty thoroughly with our mentors and the inclusion of the dual licensed
> third party code was found acceptable.  Justin McClean was involved in this
> discussion.  I briefly looked for the e-mail thread that addressed this, but
> I could not find it so my recollection might be faulty,.
>
> Any pure GPL should be removed in my opinion.
>
>

RE: [EXT] Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Peter van der Perk]

There was a discussion when the kconfig GPL switch got introduced.
The libcanutils code from my perspective would be interpreted as BSD-3.
But it was decided otherwise 
https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/833#issuecomment-918875006

-Original Message-
From: Gregory Nutt  
Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 3:50 PM
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
Subject: [EXT] Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

On 9/6/2023 5:15 AM, alin.jerpe...@sony.com wrote:
> There are known CAN sources that have GPL code and have been 
> documented in the LICENSE File
>
> All this code is protected under the include GPL code config option 
> and disabled by default
>
> Is this approach approved or we should completely remove the GPL code from 
> NuttX?

My understanding is that there can be no GPL code in any way in the Apache 
project repository.

In the case of the CANFD code, it has a dual license, GPL or BSD-3.  I don't 
recall all of the details but, as a podling at the time, we discussed this 
pretty thoroughly with our mentors and the inclusion of the dual licensed third 
party code was found acceptable.  Justin McClean was involved in this 
discussion.  I briefly looked for the e-mail thread that addressed this, but I 
could not find it so my recollection might be faulty,.

Any pure GPL should be removed in my opinion.

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Gregory Nutt]

On 9/6/2023 5:15 AM, alin.jerpe...@sony.com wrote:

There are known CAN sources that have GPL code and have been documented in the 
LICENSE File

All this code is protected under the include GPL code config option and 
disabled by default

Is this approach approved or we should completely remove the GPL code from 
NuttX?


My understanding is that there can be no GPL code in any way in the 
Apache project repository.


In the case of the CANFD code, it has a dual license, GPL or BSD-3.  I 
don't recall all of the details but, as a podling at the time, we 
discussed this pretty thoroughly with our mentors and the inclusion of 
the dual licensed third party code was found acceptable.  Justin McClean 
was involved in this discussion.  I briefly looked for the e-mail thread 
that addressed this, but I could not find it so my recollection might be 
faulty,.


Any pure GPL should be removed in my opinion.

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[raiden00pl]

> There are known CAN sources that have GPL code and have been documented
in the LICENSE File
> All this code is protected under the include GPL code config option and
disabled by default
> Is this approach approved or we should completely remove the GPL code
from NuttX?

The code in question is dual licenced :
> SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-3-Clause)

Doesn't that mean we can choose which license suits us (in this case,
BSD-3)?

śr., 6 wrz 2023 o 13:15 alin.jerpe...@sony.com 
napisał(a):

> Hi Shane,
>
> Thanks for the clarification
>
> There are known CAN sources that have GPL code and have been documented in
> the LICENSE File
>
> All this code is protected under the include GPL code config option and
> disabled by default
>
> Is this approach approved or we should completely remove the GPL code from
> NuttX?
>
> Thanks
> Alin
>
>
> From: Shane Curcuru 
> Sent: den 6 september 2023 13:07
> To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
> Subject: RE: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx
>
> On 2023/08/09 00: 20: 42 Andrew Dennison wrote: > Hi Nuttx Dev, > > We are
> negotiating with the authors of the linux device driver for the CTU > CAN
> FD IP core to it re-licenced from GPL to so the driver can then be > ported
> to
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
> Caution : This email originated from outside of Sony.
> Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender
> and know the content is safe. Please report phishing if unsure.
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
>
> On 2023/08/09 00:20:42 Andrew Dennison wrote:
>
> > Hi Nuttx Dev,
>
> >
>
> > We are negotiating with the authors of the linux device driver for the
> CTU
>
> > CAN FD IP core to it re-licenced from GPL to so the driver can then be
>
> > ported to Nuttx.
>
>
>
> Just a reminder: Apache policy prohibits GPL code, or GPL-derived code,
>
> from being included in any ASF project:
>
>
>
>https://apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x<
> https://apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x>
>
>
>
> If there is *any* question about the license of incoming code, then you
>
> should ask the Legal Affairs Committee for advice, after reviewing the
>
> ASF policy on source headers:
>
>
>
>https://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html<
> https://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html>
>
>
>
> Specific questions (i.e. about a specific body of code under license X
>
> that the project wants to incorporate) should be asked on Jira:
>
>
>
>https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/LEGAL/issues<
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/LEGAL/issues>
>
>
>
> --
>
> - Shane
>
>ASF Member
>
>The Apache Software Foundation
>
>
>
> > I've seen various licencing examples in the nuttx code base: but no high
>
> > level description that gives a definitive answer. For example there are
>
> > some cases where Authors are preserved and the code is BSD-2-Clause or
>
> > BSD-3-Clause (not Apache-2.0).
>
> >
>
> > We would appreciate some feedback on whether the proposal from Pavel
> below
>
> > is acceptable or if any minor adjustments would help.
>
> >
>
> > Kind regards,
>
> >
>
> > Andrew Dennison
>
> > Chief Architect and Hardware Team Lead
>
> > MoTeC (A Bosch Company)
>
> >
>
> > On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 19:48, Pavel Pisa  p...@fel.cvut.cz>> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > > OK, consider driver code license and NuttX compatible.
>
> > > We need to discuss what will be actual variant and file
>
> > > headers text. I suggest
>
> > >
>
> > > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0
>
> > >
>
> > >
> /***
>
> > >  *
>
> > >  * CTU CAN FD IP Core
>
> > >  *
>
> > >  * Copyright (C) 2015-2018 Ondrej Ille  ondrej.i...@gmail.com>> FEE CTU
>
> > >  * Copyright (C) 2018-2020 Ondrej Ille  ondrej.i...@gmail.com>> self-funded
>
> > >  * Copyright (C) 2018-2019 Martin Jerabek  <mailto:martin.jerabe...@gmail.com>>
>
> > > FEE CTU
>
> > >  * Copyright (C) 2018-2020 Pavel Pisa  p...@cmp.felk.cvut.cz>> FEE
>
> > > CTU/self-funded
>
> > >  *
>
> > >  * Project advisors:
>
> > >  * Jiri Novak mailto:jno...@fel.cvut.cz>>
>
> > >  * Pavel Pisa mailto:p...@cmp.felk.cvut.cz
> >

RE: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[alin.jerpe...@sony.com]

Hi Shane,

Thanks for the clarification

There are known CAN sources that have GPL code and have been documented in the 
LICENSE File

All this code is protected under the include GPL code config option and 
disabled by default

Is this approach approved or we should completely remove the GPL code from 
NuttX?

Thanks
Alin


From: Shane Curcuru 
Sent: den 6 september 2023 13:07
To: dev@nuttx.apache.org
Subject: RE: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

On 2023/08/09 00: 20: 42 Andrew Dennison wrote: > Hi Nuttx Dev, > > We are 
negotiating with the authors of the linux device driver for the CTU > CAN FD IP 
core to it re-licenced from GPL to so the driver can then be > ported to
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
Caution : This email originated from outside of Sony.
Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and 
know the content is safe. Please report phishing if unsure.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

On 2023/08/09 00:20:42 Andrew Dennison wrote:

> Hi Nuttx Dev,

>

> We are negotiating with the authors of the linux device driver for the CTU

> CAN FD IP core to it re-licenced from GPL to so the driver can then be

> ported to Nuttx.



Just a reminder: Apache policy prohibits GPL code, or GPL-derived code,

from being included in any ASF project:



   
https://apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x<https://apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x>



If there is *any* question about the license of incoming code, then you

should ask the Legal Affairs Committee for advice, after reviewing the

ASF policy on source headers:



   
https://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html<https://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html>



Specific questions (i.e. about a specific body of code under license X

that the project wants to incorporate) should be asked on Jira:



   
https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/LEGAL/issues<https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/LEGAL/issues>



--

- Shane

   ASF Member

   The Apache Software Foundation



> I've seen various licencing examples in the nuttx code base: but no high

> level description that gives a definitive answer. For example there are

> some cases where Authors are preserved and the code is BSD-2-Clause or

> BSD-3-Clause (not Apache-2.0).

>

> We would appreciate some feedback on whether the proposal from Pavel below

> is acceptable or if any minor adjustments would help.

>

> Kind regards,

>

> Andrew Dennison

> Chief Architect and Hardware Team Lead

> MoTeC (A Bosch Company)

>

> On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 19:48, Pavel Pisa 
> mailto:p...@fel.cvut.cz>> wrote:

>

> >

> > OK, consider driver code license and NuttX compatible.

> > We need to discuss what will be actual variant and file

> > headers text. I suggest

> >

> > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0

> >

> > /***

> >  *

> >  * CTU CAN FD IP Core

> >  *

> >  * Copyright (C) 2015-2018 Ondrej Ille 
> > mailto:ondrej.i...@gmail.com>> FEE CTU

> >  * Copyright (C) 2018-2020 Ondrej Ille 
> > mailto:ondrej.i...@gmail.com>> self-funded

> >  * Copyright (C) 2018-2019 Martin Jerabek 
> > mailto:martin.jerabe...@gmail.com>>

> > FEE CTU

> >  * Copyright (C) 2018-2020 Pavel Pisa 
> > mailto:p...@cmp.felk.cvut.cz>> FEE

> > CTU/self-funded

> >  *

> >  * Project advisors:

> >  * Jiri Novak mailto:jno...@fel.cvut.cz>>

> >  * Pavel Pisa mailto:p...@cmp.felk.cvut.cz>>

> >  *

> >  * Department of Measurement 
> > (http://meas.fel.cvut.cz/<http://meas.fel.cvut.cz/>)

> >  * Faculty of Electrical Engineering 
> > (http://www.fel.cvut.cz<http://www.fel.cvut.cz>)

> >  * Czech Technical University
> > (http://www.cvut.cz/<http://www.cvut.cz/>)

> >  */

> >

> > I am not sure if that is acceptable for NuttX mainline, but I do not like

> > process which stripped all information about real code authors when

> > NuttX has been absorbed by Apache. The Copyright (C) statementscan be

> > replaced

> > by text "Authors list"  if copyright of NuttX copy should be transferred

> > to Apache. But I would tend to keep list of authors who invested time,

> > lot of it even from own spare one...

> >

> >

> >

>

> --

> *MoTeC Pty Ltd*

>

> 121 Merrindale Drive

> Croydon South 3136

> Victoria Australia

> *T: *61 3 9761 5050

> *W: *http://www.motec.com.au<http://www.motec.com.au> 
> <https://www.motec.com.au/<https://www.motec.com.au/>>

>

>

> --

>  <http://www.facebook.com/m

RE: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Shane Curcuru]

On 2023/08/09 00:20:42 Andrew Dennison wrote:

Hi Nuttx Dev,

We are negotiating with the authors of the linux device driver for the CTU
CAN FD IP core to it re-licenced from GPL to so the driver can then be
ported to Nuttx.


Just a reminder: Apache policy prohibits GPL code, or GPL-derived code, 
from being included in any ASF project:


  https://apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x

If there is *any* question about the license of incoming code, then you 
should ask the Legal Affairs Committee for advice, after reviewing the 
ASF policy on source headers:


  https://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html

Specific questions (i.e. about a specific body of code under license X 
that the project wants to incorporate) should be asked on Jira:


  https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/LEGAL/issues

--
- Shane
  ASF Member
  The Apache Software Foundation


I've seen various licencing examples in the nuttx code base: but no high
level description that gives a definitive answer. For example there are
some cases where Authors are preserved and the code is BSD-2-Clause or
BSD-3-Clause (not Apache-2.0).

We would appreciate some feedback on whether the proposal from Pavel below
is acceptable or if any minor adjustments would help.

Kind regards,

Andrew Dennison
Chief Architect and Hardware Team Lead
MoTeC (A Bosch Company)

On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 19:48, Pavel Pisa  wrote:

>
> OK, consider driver code license and NuttX compatible.
> We need to discuss what will be actual variant and file
> headers text. I suggest
>
> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0
>
> 
/***
>  *
>  * CTU CAN FD IP Core
>  *
>  * Copyright (C) 2015-2018 Ondrej Ille  FEE CTU
>  * Copyright (C) 2018-2020 Ondrej Ille  self-funded
>  * Copyright (C) 2018-2019 Martin Jerabek 
> FEE CTU
>  * Copyright (C) 2018-2020 Pavel Pisa  FEE
> CTU/self-funded
>  *
>  * Project advisors:
>  * Jiri Novak 
>  * Pavel Pisa 
>  *
>  * Department of Measurement (http://meas.fel.cvut.cz/)
>  * Faculty of Electrical Engineering (http://www.fel.cvut.cz)
>  * Czech Technical University(http://www.cvut.cz/)
>  */
>
> I am not sure if that is acceptable for NuttX mainline, but I do not like
> process which stripped all information about real code authors when
> NuttX has been absorbed by Apache. The Copyright (C) statementscan be
> replaced
> by text "Authors list"  if copyright of NuttX copy should be transferred
> to Apache. But I would tend to keep list of authors who invested time,
> lot of it even from own spare one...
>
>
>

--
*MoTeC Pty Ltd*

121 Merrindale Drive
Croydon South 3136
Victoria Australia
*T: *61 3 9761 5050
*W: *www.motec.com.au 


--
  
 
 
 




--
 

--


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.

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Andrew Dennison]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 10:43, Brennan Ashton 
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 8, 2023, 5:22 PM Andrew Dennison  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Nuttx Dev,
> >
> > We are negotiating with the authors of the linux device driver for the
> CTU
> > CAN FD IP core to it re-licenced from GPL to so the driver can then be
> > ported to Nuttx.
> >
> > I've seen various licencing examples in the nuttx code base: but no high
> > level description that gives a definitive answer. For example there are
> > some cases where Authors are preserved and the code is BSD-2-Clause or
> > BSD-3-Clause (not Apache-2.0).
> >
> > We would appreciate some feedback on whether the proposal from Pavel
> below
> > is acceptable or if any minor adjustments would help.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Andrew Dennison
> > Chief Architect and Hardware Team Lead
> > MoTeC (A Bosch Company)
> >
> > On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 19:48, Pavel Pisa  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > OK, consider driver code license and NuttX compatible.
> > > We need to discuss what will be actual variant and file
> > > headers text. I suggest
> > >
> > > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0
> > >
> > >
> >
> /***
> > >  *
> > >  * CTU CAN FD IP Core
> > >  *
> > >  * Copyright (C) 2015-2018 Ondrej Ille  FEE CTU
> > >  * Copyright (C) 2018-2020 Ondrej Ille 
> > self-funded
> > >  * Copyright (C) 2018-2019 Martin Jerabek 
> > > FEE CTU
> > >  * Copyright (C) 2018-2020 Pavel Pisa  FEE
> > > CTU/self-funded
> > >  *
> > >  * Project advisors:
> > >  * Jiri Novak 
> > >  * Pavel Pisa 
> > >  *
> > >  * Department of Measurement (http://meas.fel.cvut.cz/)
> > >  * Faculty of Electrical Engineering (http://www.fel.cvut.cz)
> > >  * Czech Technical University(http://www.cvut.cz/)
> > >  */
> > >
> > > I am not sure if that is acceptable for NuttX mainline, but I do not
> like
> > > process which stripped all information about real code authors when
> > > NuttX has been absorbed by Apache. The Copyright (C) statementscan be
> > > replaced
> > > by text "Authors list"  if copyright of NuttX copy should be
> transferred
> > > to Apache. But I would tend to keep list of authors who invested time,
> > > lot of it even from own spare one...
> > >
> >
>
>
> I want to call out one thing that does not seem right. That information is
> retained here
> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/blob/master/LICENSE
>
>
> This is covered here
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
>
>
> Hopefully that helps provide some guidance.
>
>
Hi Brennan,

Thanks for the additional information - I hadn't found the Apache link as I
was just looking at Nuttx in isolation and missed any reference there is to
that other page. From the apache link it would seem the following would be
acceptable:

1) The file headers can contain "// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR
BSD-2-Clause" and the author copyrights as proposed by Pavel. Note that I
have not included the Apache-2.0 licence as this does not seem to be
required, but I'm not sure it makes a difference either way.
2) The top level nuttx LICENCE file is updated with a statement that the
ctu_can_fd driver is being used under the terms of the BSD-2-Clause licence

Kind Regards,

Andrew

-- 
*MoTeC Pty Ltd*

121 Merrindale Drive
Croydon South 3136
Victoria Australia
*T: *61 3 9761 5050
*W: *www.motec.com.au 


-- 
  
 
 
 



-- 
 

-- 


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.

Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx

[Brennan Ashton]

On Tue, Aug 8, 2023, 5:22 PM Andrew Dennison 
wrote:

> Hi Nuttx Dev,
>
> We are negotiating with the authors of the linux device driver for the CTU
> CAN FD IP core to it re-licenced from GPL to so the driver can then be
> ported to Nuttx.
>
> I've seen various licencing examples in the nuttx code base: but no high
> level description that gives a definitive answer. For example there are
> some cases where Authors are preserved and the code is BSD-2-Clause or
> BSD-3-Clause (not Apache-2.0).
>
> We would appreciate some feedback on whether the proposal from Pavel below
> is acceptable or if any minor adjustments would help.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Andrew Dennison
> Chief Architect and Hardware Team Lead
> MoTeC (A Bosch Company)
>
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 19:48, Pavel Pisa  wrote:
>
> >
> > OK, consider driver code license and NuttX compatible.
> > We need to discuss what will be actual variant and file
> > headers text. I suggest
> >
> > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0
> >
> >
> /***
> >  *
> >  * CTU CAN FD IP Core
> >  *
> >  * Copyright (C) 2015-2018 Ondrej Ille  FEE CTU
> >  * Copyright (C) 2018-2020 Ondrej Ille 
> self-funded
> >  * Copyright (C) 2018-2019 Martin Jerabek 
> > FEE CTU
> >  * Copyright (C) 2018-2020 Pavel Pisa  FEE
> > CTU/self-funded
> >  *
> >  * Project advisors:
> >  * Jiri Novak 
> >  * Pavel Pisa 
> >  *
> >  * Department of Measurement (http://meas.fel.cvut.cz/)
> >  * Faculty of Electrical Engineering (http://www.fel.cvut.cz)
> >  * Czech Technical University(http://www.cvut.cz/)
> >  */
> >
> > I am not sure if that is acceptable for NuttX mainline, but I do not like
> > process which stripped all information about real code authors when
> > NuttX has been absorbed by Apache. The Copyright (C) statementscan be
> > replaced
> > by text "Authors list"  if copyright of NuttX copy should be transferred
> > to Apache. But I would tend to keep list of authors who invested time,
> > lot of it even from own spare one...
> >
>


I want to call out one thing that does not seem right. That information is
retained here
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/blob/master/LICENSE


This is covered here
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices


Hopefully that helps provide some guidance.

--Brennan