Hello everybody,
thanks for discussion. I understand that licesing, preventing
damages by misbehavior etc. are quite wide area and I have
some general interrest in these topics. But for actual case,
my original question and point is simple.
If we contribute the work (our work) with next the
SPDX-
Gregory Nutt wrote on 12/10/23 5:22 PM:
On 12/10/2023 4:05 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
I think we have to be careful with the word "contribution". The ASF
cannot accept any contribution that is licensed and copyrighted by
some other entity. To "contribute" the code is to donate the code to
t
On 12/10/2023 4:05 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
I think we have to be careful with the word "contribution". The ASF
cannot accept any contribution that is licensed and copyrighted by
some other entity. To "contribute" the code is to donate the code to
the ASF without retaining any claims to i
HI,
That’s not quite correct; the ASF doesn’t ask for copyright transfer, just
permission to distribute under the Apache license. But yes, a contribution that
is 3rd party code is not really a contribution in strict terms and 3rd party
code is treated differently to code contributed to an ASF p
Gregory Nutt wrote on 12/10/23 9:54 AM:
On 12/10/2023 7:15 AM, Alan C. Assis wrote:
I understand your point. And in fact I think the issue is not your
contribution itself, but the future contribution from developers of RTEMS
and Linux that are using GPL.
I think we have to be careful with the
Thank you Greg!
Indeed, that should be the path in this case, it should be treated as 3rd
party code.
Licensing a software as dual license (or triple license as in this case)
makes things more complicated.
Best Regards,
Alan
On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 11:54 AM Gregory Nutt wrote:
> On 12/10/202
On 12/10/2023 7:15 AM, Alan C. Assis wrote:
I understand your point. And in fact I think the issue is not your
contribution itself, but the future contribution from developers of RTEMS
and Linux that are using GPL.
I think we have to be careful with the word "contribution". The ASF
cannot acc
Hi Pavel,
I understand your point. And in fact I think the issue is not your
contribution itself, but the future contribution from developers of RTEMS
and Linux that are using GPL.
Those developers couldn't be comfortable contributing their improvements
back to other OS that don't use GPL license.
Hello Alan and others,
On 11/10/23, Justin Mclean wrote:
> HI,
>
> If it is dual (or more) licensed as Apache 2.0 or GPL then you can take
> the most permissive license, i.e Apache 2.0 and include it in an ASF
> project under that license.
thanks for the discussion but I have had no doubts about
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 12:08 AM Alan C. Assis wrote:
> Thank you very much Justin!
> I forgot to redirect your response to @dev-nuttx
> So, according with Justin we could take the most permissive license and use
> it!
> Best Regards,
> Alan
Great news! Thank you Alan and Justin!! :-)
--
CeDeRO
Thank you very much Justin!
I forgot to redirect your response to @dev-nuttx
So, according with Justin we could take the most permissive license and use it!
Best Regards,
Alan
On 11/10/23, Justin Mclean wrote:
> HI,
>
> If it is dual (or more) licensed as Apache 2.0 or GPL then you can take t
11 matches
Mail list logo
