On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 8:07 PM Tim Hardisty <timhardist...@gmail.com> wrote:
> See Greg's response below which didn't make it to the list. > > See comments inline below. > > On 13/05/2025 03:13, Gregory Nutt wrote: > > > > > > On 5/12/2025 11:54 AM, Tim Hardisty wrote: > >> I am adding mDNS/DNS-SD query responder software to my project to > >> allow my NuttX "appliance" to be identified as a ".local" device on > >> the network. > >> > >> It is using public domain software here: > >> https://github.com/mjansson/mdns > >> > >> Firstly: would this be best done as part of the kernel under the > >> CONFIG_NET umbrella; or as an app as a NETUTILS feature? > > > We have done the porting before, you can use it from here directly: https://github.com/open-vela/external/tree/dev/mdns https://github.com/open-vela/external_mdns > If it uses *only* standard applications interfaces, to the OS then it > > is an application and should not be inside the OS. This is for > > modularity and security reasons. If it uses both standardized > > application interfaces and internal OS interfaces, then it belongs in > > libs/. If it uses *only* OS interfaces then it might be part of the OS. > > > > NOTE that OS and applications use a different set of interfaces with > > difference calling rules from application space. It is not portable > > between the either of the two contexts without some additional > > complexity and a fairly deep understanding of the OS interfaces. > > > Noted: but, all things being equal, would mDNS/DNS-SD be "better" in the > OS or as an App (daemon)? > it should belong to the apps folder which is a normal library calling POSIX API. > > > >> > >> Secondly: my read of the PD license is that there would be no problem > >> plundering the necessary code and submitting it as a NuttX feature. > >> Does anyone disagree - for example is an Apache license of what was > >> public domain software not a good/nice/allowed thing? I assume it > >> would be good to include a link to the original work somewhere or other? > > > > The ASF defines some very strict rules for the inclusion of 3rd part > > code. Make sure that any thing you want conforms to: > > > > * https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html (official version) > > * https://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html (previous version) > > > Thanks for the links. The original code is tagged as being under the > "unlicense.org" rules and has the necessary disclaimers I think Apache > will want. > > I may end up just using the PD code as inspiration and write my own > version, in which the "problem" goes away. Otherwise I will submit as a > draft PR and will see what others have to say - the question can be > submitted if needed to the Apache folk. But I'm a way away from being > ready for that anyway! > It's fine not adding the source code to repo directly, but downloading the code on demand, like many other 3rd party project: https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/tree/master/benchmarks/coremark
