I think GPL code shouldn't be included directly, but I think it is fair to allow GPL code be downloaded using the building system case user selected it.
Some time ago I suggested to create a tainted variable in the building system to track it, after I suggested that a friend of mine from Espressif added it to Zephyr. Doing this way will avoid someone saying that wasn't aware of BSD, MIT, GPL or other license included in their final binary. BR, Alan On 9/7/23, Peter van der Perk <peter.vanderp...@nxp.com> wrote: > There was a discussion when the kconfig GPL switch got introduced. > The libcanutils code from my perspective would be interpreted as BSD-3. > But it was decided otherwise > https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/833#issuecomment-918875006 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 3:50 PM > To: dev@nuttx.apache.org > Subject: [EXT] Re: CTU CAN FD driver multi-licence for Nuttx > > On 9/6/2023 5:15 AM, alin.jerpe...@sony.com wrote: >> There are known CAN sources that have GPL code and have been >> documented in the LICENSE File >> >> All this code is protected under the include GPL code config option >> and disabled by default >> >> Is this approach approved or we should completely remove the GPL code from >> NuttX? > > My understanding is that there can be no GPL code in any way in the Apache > project repository. > > In the case of the CANFD code, it has a dual license, GPL or BSD-3. I don't > recall all of the details but, as a podling at the time, we discussed this > pretty thoroughly with our mentors and the inclusion of the dual licensed > third party code was found acceptable. Justin McClean was involved in this > discussion. I briefly looked for the e-mail thread that addressed this, but > I could not find it so my recollection might be faulty,. > > Any pure GPL should be removed in my opinion. > >
