On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 3:41 PM Xiang Xiao <xiaoxiang781...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nathan Hartman <hartman.nat...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 12:00 AM > > To: dev@nuttx.apache.org > > Subject: Re: mbedtls > > > > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 7:58 AM Alan Carvalho de Assis <acas...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > Some months ago I suggested that NuttX could focus only in the kernel > > > and we could create an external distribution using some build system > > > like buildroot, yocto, etc. But as some people pointed, maybe a great > > > strength of NuttX is to have everything integrated. > > > > That is a strength of NuttX, and it would be a shame to ruin it for no > > technical reason and only because we can't find an acceptable way > > to deal with licenses and where to keep code... > > > > ...which is why I think the "glue code" idea is best for 3rd party code > > that we want to integrate. > > > > With "glue code": > > * We do not have to copy 3rd party projects into our repository. > > * We do not need external non-Apache-project repositories. > > * We do not have to copy 3rd party projects into external > > non-Apache-project repositories. > > > > All we do is develop "glue code" which comprises Kconfig files, Make.defs > > files, and possibly patch files. Those would be developed by > > us. Those would be part of Apache NuttX. Those would have the Apache > > license. We would NOT copy any 3rd party projects into our > > repositories. > > > > When users select those items in Kconfig, our build system will invoke the > > "glue code" which will download/clone (if not already > > present) the 3rd party project onto the user's machine and build that code > > as part of their NuttX build. > > > > Our glue code could be smart: For example if a 3rd party library is GPL, in > > our glue code, it would depend on > > "CONFIG_ALLOW_GPL_LICENSE" > > or something like that. So the end user will have to decide if GPL is > > suitable, and if yes, select to allow it, and then select whatever GPL > > 3rd party code they want to have it built and included in their image. > > > > There is no problem with licensing with this approach. > > > > There are no hostile forks. > > > > There is no need to ask permission, SGAs, etc. because we are not copying > > 3rd party code into our repositories. > > > > And you can integrate every FOSS project in the world with NuttX. > > > > Because: We are only developing glue code and we own the glue code. > > > > People can choose to activate it if they want to, or not. If they want to, > > they accept the licenses of the 3rd party code that they will > > download. > > > > So the question is where should we put the "glue code"? > 1.Put to apps/external/ directly > 2.Put to a new git(e.g. apache-nuttx-external.git) > 3.Put to some folders under apps by catalog(e.g. apps/crypto/mbedtls) > I prefer item 1 or item 2 personally.
4. similar to 1, but put them to a new directory, say apps/glues, to avoid conflicting with the existing apps/external users. > > > The only concern I can see with this is: What happens if I, as a user of > > NuttX, depend on external projects, and those external projects > > disappear from the Internet. Well, the answer is that our glue code should > > allow you to customize the download/clone location. So, as > > a user of NuttX, you can create your own local clone of 3rd party code, so > > that if the original disappears from the Internet, you have a > > copy. > > That becomes the user's responsibility. We don't copy any 3rd party code > > into our repositories. > > > > We do have to solve the issue of Kconfig. That has disappeared from the > > Internet and we depend on it. We were told, before we > > joined Apache, that sometimes ASF does allow to mirror well-known FOSS > > tools. > > So we'll have to look at that. > > > > Before ASF host this tools, we have to keep them on > https://bitbucket.org/nuttx or https://github.com/nuttx. > > > Nathan >
