Apache and BSD license compatibility

[Adam Feuer]

Apache NuttX mentors,

Hi, I'm considering a project to create a source code compatibility layer that would allow BSD USB Wifi drivers to be used in NuttX. This would involve adding BSD-licensed code to the NuttX project.

This page on the Apache website seems to say that this would be allowed. Is this correct?

cheers

adam
--

Adam Feuer <ad...@adamfeuer.com>

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

Hi, I'm considering a project to create a source code compatibility layer that would allow BSD USB Wifi drivers to be used in NuttX. This would involve adding BSD-licensed code to the NuttX project.

What’s the BSD code that going to be added? I would check that all of the code is BSD licensed and there’s nothing hidden inside.

This page on the Apache website seems to say that this would be allowed. Is this correct?

I'st allowed as it compatible with the ALv2 terms and you would need to add it’s license to your LICENSE file. [1]

Thanks,

Justin

1. https://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html

[Gregory Nutt]

Justin,

Could we do the the same thing also the code that has been lingering on the SocketCAN branch (so long that it is embarrassing).  It is all BSD (and dual license) and we have verbal support and encouragements from all of the authors and copyright holders to bring this code into the NuttX master.

Is there some reason is must continue to wait?  And, if so, what are we waiting to happen?  Is there anyway that we can get this code moving again?

Greg

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NuttX" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to nuttx+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nuttx/43A1B51D-B7DE-4C9D-BE94-433D51E12DF9%40classsoftware.com.

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

Could we do the the same thing also the code that has been lingering on the SocketCAN branch (so long that it is embarrassing).  It is all BSD (and dual license) and we have verbal support and encouragements from all of the authors and copyright holders to bring this code into the NuttX master

From memory I think that situation was a little bit different. It would really be best if that was treated as a software grant but if not something can be done. Have all contributors signed ICLAs?

Thanks,

Justin

[Gregory Nutt]

I believe that there is nothing different in the situation.  It is all
BSD code.  No contributor has signed an ICLA.

Same situation as using code from OpenBSD.  I see no difference.

[Gregory Nutt]

There is one big difference.  I have spoken (via email) with all of the
authors and copyright holders and each has given their support and
encouragement to bring the code into NuttX.

Is there something I am missing?

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> There is one big difference. I have spoken (via email) with all of the authors and copyright holders and each has given their support and encouragement to bring the code into NuttX.

Is being developing a branch of Nutt is one obvious one. Sure if you want go and merge it but at some point before graduation it will need to be sorted.

Thanks,
Justin

[Gregory Nutt]

I just noticed that this conversation was occurring on
nu...@googlegroups.com.  Not sure how we got there.  Moving back to
d...@nuttx.apache.org where I thought we were all along.

>> There is one big difference. I have spoken (via email) with all of the authors and copyright holders and each has given their support and encouragement to bring the code into NuttX.
> Is being developing a branch of Nutt is one obvious one. Sure if you want go and merge it but at some point before graduation it will need to be sorted.

Yes, this is a custom port that was developed specifically for use in
NuttX.  The primary authors of the port are Peter Van Der Perk (NXP) and
myself and is based on a common SocketCAN core stack by Oliver Hartkopp
(VW): "... that's a cool idea and I definitely support your idea to
support SocketCAN for NuttX!"  I have worked through this with all
players include Peter's supervisor.

Corporate legal is the bottleneck.  I doubt that corporate legal sees
any benefit to the corporation by conforming to ASF expectations.  I
think they believe that the BSD license is sufficient.

I will start looking into what is needed to re-verify the branch and
merge it into master next week after we branch off for the 9.1 release.

It will be so good to have this resolved.  Thanks for your help.

Greg

[Adam Feuer]

I'm sorry about using the wrong address, that was my mistake.

Justin, thanks for the quick response about the BSD-licensed code. That sounds workable. When I get close to implementation I'll send an email here (to the right list!) to give an update on how it would work.

cheers

adam

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NuttX" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to nuttx+un...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nuttx/e997fdca-9bec-f93b-70a4-3ea9804e4b45%40gmail.com.

--

Adam Feuer <ad...@starcat.io>

[Gregory Nutt]

I have been discussing the merge with Peter off line.  I think he plans to submit another PR instead of using the branch.  I am not sure yet but I hope that does not make things more complex.

There will also be a PR against inclubator-nuttx-apps that beings in some SocketCAN tools.  There are specially wrapped for use by NuttX but have the same dual licensed VW code within the wrapping. 

Some references:

- Freshly re-verified SocketCAN code: https://github.com/PetervdPerk-NXP/incubator-nuttx/tree/SocketCAN

- netlib integration: https://github.com/PetervdPerk-NXP/nuttx-apps-testing/commit/1708c7ed8dcbbc08a2e64623015cd0a1815da993

- candump port: https://github.com/PetervdPerk-NXP/nuttx-apps-testing/tree/master/canutils/candump

- There may also be a demo example later based on more dual license code from: https://github.com/linux-can/can-utils  TBD

Greg