There is wayyyyy 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 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 > > >> > > > > -- > *MoTeC Pty Ltd* > > 121 Merrindale Drive > Croydon South 3136 > Victoria Australia > *T: *61 3 9761 5050 > *W: *www.motec.com.au <https://www.motec.com.au/> > > > -- > <http://www.facebook.com/motec.global> > <http://www.youtube.com/user/MoTeCAustralia> > <https://www.instagram.com/motec_global/> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/motec-global> > <https://twitter.com/motec_global> > > > -- > <https://www.professionalmotorsport-expo.com/en/register.php> > > -- > > > 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. >
