On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:39 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here would would be the ideal from an ASF point of view:
> 1. All large pieces of 3rd party code is donated to the ASF via SGAs
> 2. If not, anyone who worked on large contributors have a signed ICLA.
> 3. Remove the 3rd party code if
Hi ,
comparing the changes between the branches and looking at the authors I only
see 3:
Gregory Nutt
Jari van Ewijk
Peter van der Perk
One solution would be to get Jari and Peter to sign ICLA (I see none on file)
and get a CCLA or SGA from VW (who I assume they work for). The amount of
change
Hi,
Here would would be the ideal from an ASF point of view:
1. All large pieces of 3rd party code is donated to the ASF via SGAs
2. If not, anyone who worked on large contributors have a signed ICLA.
3. Remove the 3rd party code if it has an active community elsewhere and can be
used as an exter
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:43 AM Justin Mclean wrote:
> > I know that both VW and NXP is okay with incoporating into NuttX. In fact,
> > they are enthusiastic about it. What kind of documentation would we need
> > just to get permission without changing the licensing?
>
> An interesting questi
HI,
> Is that the official Apache position?
Yes ASF policy is in line with that. If it “offical” is a matter of
interpretation but as VP Incubator and an ASF board member I would consider it
so.
> It this discussion, I think it depends on which rights you are referring to.
> I am speaking on
From my understanding, it is just the slow wheels of corporate legal
departments. In my experience, legal departments just see no win to giving up
rights.
If they don’t want to give the rights to us to use it, do we actually have the
rights to use it? (Despite what the license may say) IM
Hi,
> I know that both VW and NXP is okay with incoporating into NuttX. In fact,
> they are enthusiastic about it. What kind of documentation would we need
> just to get permission without changing the licensing?
An interesting question. Legally nothing is needed and ASF policy wise nothing
Hi,
> From my understanding, it is just the slow wheels of corporate legal
> departments. In my experience, legal departments just see no win to giving
> up rights.
If they don’t want to give the rights to us to use it, do we actually have the
rights to use it? (Despite what the license may
Unfortunately it is not always easy, many projects doesn't like to
re-license their code.
What do you suggest in these cases? What to do if NXP doesn't accept
to assign the SGA?
On 4/23/20, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> There is a LOT of third party code in the Mynewt repositories.
>
> Having
There is a LOT of third party code in the Mynewt repositories.
Having 3rd party code that is under a compatible license is OK, but the ASF
likes to go a step further and know that the owner is OK with this. The ASF
doesn’t take code without permission or make hostile forks of projects. Mynew
Given that we have been trying unsuccessfully to get an SGA from NXP
This I think in the issue why are they not willing to do this?
From my understanding, it is just the slow wheels of corporate legal
departments. In my experience, legal departments just see no win to
giving up rights. W
Hi,
> There is a LOT of third party code in the Mynewt repositories.
Having 3rd party code that is under a compatible license is OK, but the ASF
likes to go a step further and know that the owner is OK with this. The ASF
doesn’t take code without permission or make hostile forks of projects. M
Hi,
> Given that we have been trying unsuccessfully to get an SGA from NXP
This I think in the issue why are they not willing to do this?
Thanks,
Justin
I would love it if we could merge the code soon.
It does have a limited shelf life, if we don't get it in place to it
will be a waste of a real effort and probably the most major
contribution every made to Apache NuttX.
I, too, would like to hear from our mentors regarding the licensing.
AFA
Merge the SocketCAN branch onto master. I don't think any further
review or checks are required (but ARE certainly welcome). All of the
PRs used to create the SocketCAN branch were previously reviewed and
the merge is very low risk since it should, in principle, effect only
the SocketCAN ne
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:13 AM Gregory Nutt wrote:
>
> As most of you know, there is a branch called SocketCAN in the
> incubator_nuttx repository. This branch holds a port of port of VW's
> socket CAN plus NXP copyrighted files. All are BSD licensed (the VW
> code is dual licensed) and compati
As most of you know, there is a branch called SocketCAN in the
incubator_nuttx repository. This branch holds a port of port of VW's
socket CAN plus NXP copyrighted files. All are BSD licensed (the VW
code is dual licensed) and compatible with the Apache 2.0 license.
The code is stuck on this
17 matches
Mail list logo
