From my understanding, it is just the slow wheels of corporate legal
departments. In my experience, legal departments just see no win to giving up
rights.
If they don’t want to give the rights to us to use it, do we actually have the
rights to use it? (Despite what the license may say) IMO if that is the case we
should remove the code.
Is that the official Apache position? Sometimes is it is difficult to
separate your opinion (which you have a right to) from the official
requirements of the ASF. You opinion should be taken into account as
with all other interested parties, but we all must comply with the ASF
requirements.
It this discussion, I think it depends on which rights you are referring
to. I am speaking only of the legal rights as state in the license of
the file. That is the part that legal people are hesitant to change.
The licenses do permit use by use and the contributors do want us to
exercise those rights and use the software in NuttX. So I think we are
mixing issues here.
The code permits its re-use, the authors want us to incorporate it, the
ASF third party web pages I have seen say it is compatible, what else
will be needed to prove that they give us the rights to use the code
(which we already have). The are not going to do an SGA in my lifetime,
nor will Xiaomi, nor will Sony, nor with PX4. That just isn't going to
happy. But that does not mean that they are not encouraging us to use
the code.
This just gets less clear to me all of the time. What, as a minimum, do
we have to do to satisfy the requirements of the ASF? Isn't everything
here: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
Are we adding ad hoc requirements on top of the ASF requirements?
