The vendor must be properly informed that if the code is contributed to an ASF repository under an SGA or ICLA, then the ASF is the sole owner of the code, not the vendor. ________________________________ From: Nathan Hartman <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2026 11:43 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Hosting Espressif HAL under Apache umbrella
If the vendor wishes to contribute the code to the ASF and provide the needed SGA then it's OK. I don't know whether the vendor wants to do that. Somehow, we need to get out of the impasse and find a way forward that is beneficial for everyone. Thanks, Nathan On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 2:37 PM Gregory Nutt <[email protected]> wrote: > Alan is correct: "Hosting a non-ASF (Apache Software Foundation) code > repository directly under official Apache infrastructure or versio control > organization is not allowed, as the ASF requires all official project code > to be housed within its supported services and managed strictly under > Apache committer policies." > > From AI Summary to Google search for "host non-ASF repository under Apache > repository" (I was too lazy to hunt down the exact ASF documents, but you > can do the same search for further info. > > > ________________________________ > From: Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, October 2, 2026 8:10 AM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Hosting Espressif HAL under Apache umbrella > > -1 > > As I explained before we cannot keep all HALs under ASF. > > BR, > > Alan > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 10:31 AM Tiago Medicci Serrano < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > After several discussions about HAL usage and community governance > > [1][2][3], we (Espressif) propose hosting the current content of ` > > github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty` > <http://github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty> > > <http://github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty> under an ASF-hosted > > repository: ` > > github.com/apache/nuttx-hal-espressif` > <http://github.com/apache/nuttx-hal-espressif> > > <http://github.com/apache/nuttx-hal-espressif>. > > > > *What does it mean:* > > > > - `esp-hal-3rdparty` content is already Apache 2.0 licensed. > > - Espressif's CCLA allows us to contribute to a newly created > > repository: we would create a PR on ` > > github.com/apache/nuttx-hal-espressif` > <http://github.com/apache/nuttx-hal-espressif> > > <http://github.com/apache/nuttx-hal-espressif> with `esp-hal-3rdparty` > > content. > > - On the other hand, the org account on `github.com/nuttx` > <http://github.com/nuttx> > > <http://github.com/nuttx> is not > > legally attached to Apache Software Foundation and, > > consequently, to NuttX. > > We can't directly contribute to it. > > - NuttX's committers will have (just like `nuttx` and `nuttx-apps`) > > write permissions to merge PRs on the newly created repository; > > - Espressif will support the community with HAL usage, including a > > comprehensive guide on how to update it so that any community member > can > > send patches for HAL. > > - The discussion about HAL governance comes and goes, creating > > instability in the NuttX community among members, developers, and > > vendors. > > This is no longer acceptable and needs settlement. That being said: > > - `github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty` > <http://github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty> > > <http://github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty> will no longer receive > > direct contributions for now. > > - The newly created `apache/nuttx-hal-espressif` - if the community > > agrees on that - will enable it to evolve and receive new > > contributions > > with more authority from the community. > > - On the other hand, native development is always an option if the > > community decides to keep supporting the devices on its own. > > > > *What it doesn't mean:* > > > > - It doesn't mean we are pushing NuttX to accept vendor HALs. > > `esp-hal-3rdparty` is a reality, and we want to empower the community > to > > enable any NuttX member to directly work with it. > > - The discussion of whether NuttX should or should not officially > > approve vendor HALs is not related to this call for a vote. > > > > This seems to be a *Procedural Issue* [4], and a simple majority should > be > > applied. The community is encouraged to vote. PMC members have binding > > votes. > > > > In that sense, my vote (Tiago) is *+1 *(binding) > > > > References: > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/gf4c3z4ds94lon91op4c6zmclqnwtvcf > > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/nvnrf30jcdsxcrydmo2s95tdtlj8zvx9 > > [3] https://lists.apache.org/thread/bg74qn14rs9qwson5lzt0xjb4fvbqh6j > > [4] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting > > >
