Hi Tomek,
*With current proposition all issues that you reported seem to befixed, we would be part of handling PRs, code it under NuttX / ASFumbrella, but we still have active support of the vendor developmentteam, this this seems the best possible solution. At first you wantedexactly this now you seem to oppose it, why??* My concern is regarding other vendors. We have a colleague from Renesas willing to add support for an MCU, but asking him to talk to his management to formally donate the code is complex, I know this from personal experience. I also thought about doing the same with Holtek, but I have no way to ask their engineering and legal teams to evaluate and generate documentation to donate code to the ASF. This is why I insist on using github.com/NuttX, which is why I asked for a vote on that. You mentioned the supply chain concern, which I don't believe is an issue since we have the same team of reviewers and committers. Ultimately, to justify choosing NuttX over Zephyr in my daily work, I need to show competitive hardware support, especially for building PoCs that, when successful, drive product development. I'm worried that following this path will result in tight coupling with Espressif. Em qua., 7 de out. de 2026 às 16:31, Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> escreveu: > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 7:21 PM spudaneco <[email protected]> wrote: > > Of course, Nuttx and all of its trademarks are owned be the ASF. Nuttx > can never abandon the ASF.The ASF has a substantial legal organization that > enforces its licensing and ownership.The same would be true of any 3rd > party who grants their software via an SGA, CCLA, or ICLA. > > Ah, so there is the catch.. but isn't now too late for that? :-P > > Alin do you know how much impact on SBOM / CRA would have HAL outside > ASF compared to under ASF umbrella? > > -- > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info > -- *--Felipe Moura de Oliveira* Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/felipe-oliveira-75a651a0>
