So assuming all the code is dual licensed GPL/BSD and not a mixture of licenses
then we’re fine to use it. We would need to note its license in our LICENSE
file.
Great! So I am proposing to assist the parties that are interested in
the development by creating a SocketCAN branch and contri
Hi,
> Maybe setting up fossology would be a good idea at some point. Does Apache
> run a fossology server?
We don’t but I have suggested before that this project do so.
Thanks,
Justin
Yep,
The PR I referenced was cleaning up the spdx headers in that userspace
project so that it was clear how files are licensed. The stuff that
originated from VW is still dual, but a lot of the stuff added later is
only GPL. The good news is most of the core utils fall into the dual
licensed bit
Hi,
Looking through teh files in that repro I not some are GPL only. e.g [1] but
files that are dual licensed are fine e.g [2] NuttX releases would not be able
to include or depend on those files.
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://github.com/linux-can/can-utils/blob/master/slcand.c
2. https://github.c
HI,
A couple of points:
- The GPL license is not compatible with the Apache License and its ASF policy
not to include GPL code in our source releases [1][2]
- If things are dual licensed (which means all code is License A or license B
rather than a mixture of license A and licenseB) when you ca
I got a response from the VW Open Source person, Oliver HartKopp. For
now, I will just forward it as is to the entire list:
Forwarded Message
Subject:Re: SocketCAN in NuttX?
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 17:12:30 +0100
From: Oliver Hartkopp
To: Gregory Nutt
Hi G
Not legal advice, but this should be fairly clear because they did the leg
work of doing the spdx headers (which we should keep if we bring this in).
We can treat the code either the GPLv2 or the BSD-3 license, this actually
came up recently because the licensing around can-utils was being clar
Not legal advice, but this should be fairly clear because they did the leg
work of doing the spdx headers (which we should keep if we bring this in).
We can treat the code either the GPLv2 or the BSD-3 license, this actually
came up recently because the licensing around can-utils was being clarifie
My approach has always been to go direct to the copyright holder and get it
in writing that you can use the code under a license which is compatible
with yours. It makes things a lot simpler down the line, even if it's
usually a massive hassle up front.
Rob
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020, 14:44 Gregory Nutt
I have been having an offline discussion with a business that is
interested in bringing VW's SocketCAN into NuttX. But I am puzzled by
how the licensing fits with Apache. Let me just quote:
/I’m no legal expert but Volkswagen research dual licensed SocketCAN
as Dual BSD/GPL as shown in
10 matches
Mail list logo
