@Brennan Ashton <bash...@brennanashton.com> 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 <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. > > 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 <a...@shanecurcuru.org> 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 <pe...@nxp.com> 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 <sp...@gmail.com> > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
