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 <acas...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Tomek,
On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> 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
