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-discu
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
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 ther
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 th
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
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).
>
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 mos
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 advic
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 othe
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/
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 reco
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 D
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 G
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
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 lice
> 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 wan
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 shoul
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 Licen
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
> >
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 l
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
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
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
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.
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 li
t; > 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
> &
om/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.jer
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 specific
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 b
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
e.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 i
: 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
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 t
;
> 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
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 d
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,
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
> > por
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
38 matches
Mail list logo
