On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 12:07 PM Alan C. Assis <acas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/17/23, Nathan Hartman <hartman.nat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 6:16 AM raiden00pl <raiden0...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> NVMC support for NRF52 chips was ported from Nordic SDK which was > >> released > >> on the BSD license (old times), so these features should depend on > >> CONFIG_ALLOW_BSD_COMPONENTS=y. Users must manually enable support for > the > >> BSD components to continue using the mentioned features. > >> > >> Related PR: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/8827 > > > > > > Thanks for posting about it to the list. I just added my review there, > > but it got me thinking: > > > > We have many files listed in LICENSE which are non-Apache-2.0-License > > and I haven't had a chance to check but I have a feeling that there > > could be more files that should be protected by ALLOW_BSD_COMPONENTS / > > ALLOW_MIT_COMPONENTS / ALLOW_GPL_COMPONENTS / ALLOW_*_COMPONENTS that > > are not currently protected. > > > > For each file that has a non-Apache-2.0-License at the top, should we > > wrap the entire file contents with: > > > > #ifdef ALLOW_*_COMPONENTS > > . > > . > > . > > #endif /* ALLOW_*_COMPONENTS */ > > > > (for the appropriate value of * of course)? > > > > Yes, doing that will cause compiler errors when a build tries to use > > those files and doesn't have the required ALLOW_*_COMPONENTS enabled, > > but that will help us find all those cases relatively quickly and fix > > them by adding "depends on ALLOW_*_COMPONENTS" in Kconfig. > > > > It will ensure that when someone doesn't choose ALLOW_BSD_COMPONENTS / > > ALLOW_MIT_COMPONENTS / ALLOW_GPL_COMPONENTS then their build will > > actually be licensed as advertised. > > > > If we want to do it then obviously it should be separate PRs, maybe > > one for each component we find... > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Nathan, the downsize of adding "depends on ALLOW_*_COMPONENTS" in > Kconfig is it will hide the feature, so a new user will never know > that NuttX supports such feature. > > There is an "awful" workaround that people uses to show comments in > the Kconfig, they just use "depends on !ALLOW_*_COMPONENTS" to display > a comment saying that the user needs to enable that LICENSE to use > that feature. > > Sometime ago I suggested the option of adding a "tainted" symbol (like > that used on Linux kernel) that indicates if the final binary has some > license different from Apache and warn the user. > > That should be a better approach because make users' live easier (and > our as well because we don't need to worry about Kconfig workarounds). > BTW, few days ago a colleague of mine that works here at Espressif, > but on Zephyr team, added it into mainline. > > BR, > > Alan Yes I agree that hiding the existence of the feature is Bad. We really should have a community discussion about what is the method we use for the non-Apache license choice and then we should be consistent throughout the source tree. Cheers Nathan
