From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A44E03989 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 17:21:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2016 08:21:20 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,574,1473145200"; d="scan'208,217";a="1075654111" Received: from irsmsx152.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.66]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2016 08:21:20 -0800 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.145]) by IRSMSX152.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 16:21:19 +0000 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: Michael Dolan CC: "moving@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: How do other BSD-licensed projects handle patent issues? Thread-Index: AdJLJYPtVmtEDZZvQFaT30DA+/ViOA== Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 16:21:18 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67626B59@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiMTQ0ZjY4ZWMtNzY4My00MWRiLWE3OTAtYjY4NGIxYmM0NGQwIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjIuMTEuMCIsIlRydXN0ZWRMYWJlbEhhc2giOiJaZE9DM1JEN01lSldWSnRSSHhqS0YrTHpjUzY2XC9BblVPN0xRU2Y4TjlIZz0ifQ== x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67626B59IRSMSX108gercor_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [dpdk-moving] How do other BSD-licensed projects handle patent issues? X-BeenThere: moving@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK community structure changes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 16:21:47 -0000 --_000_26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67626B59IRSMSX108gercor_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mike, At yesterday's call on moving DPDK to the Linux Foundation we had a discuss= ion on the need for a CLA. The concern from some Linaro members with the cu= rrent process (DCO and BSD license) is the lack of patent protection. We ag= reed on the call to check with you to see if the Linux Foundation have any = guidance on whether this has been an issue with other BSD-licensed projects= , and if so on how they dealt with it. The majority opinion on the call was against a CLA because of the extra ove= rhead required for contributors to get the CLA reviewed/approved by their l= egal teams before they can contribute to the project. An alternative soluti= on if we do need patent protection would be to move to the Apache 2.0 licen= se for new contributions. Both solutions (CLA and Apache 2.0) would only gi= ve partial coverage though, as neither would apply to the existing DPDK cod= e base (trying to apply either retrospectively would be a big effort). I realize this question may involve a legal opinion on software licensing, = so it may be difficult to answer publically, but we agreed to check with yo= u to see if the LF have any guidance which might help us to reach a conclus= ion on this. Tim --_000_26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67626B59IRSMSX108gercor_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Mike,

 

At yesterday’s call on moving DPDK to the Linu= x Foundation we had a discussion on the need for a CLA. The concern from so= me Linaro members with the current process (DCO and BSD license) is the lac= k of patent protection. We agreed on the call to check with you to see if the Linux Foundation have any guidance on= whether this has been an issue with other BSD-licensed projects, and if so= on how they dealt with it.

 

The majority opinion on the call was against a CLA b= ecause of the extra overhead required for contributors to get the CLA revie= wed/approved by their legal teams before they can contribute to the project= . An alternative solution if we do need patent protection would be to move to the Apache 2.0 license for new = contributions. Both solutions (CLA and Apache 2.0) would only give partial = coverage though, as neither would apply to the existing DPDK code base (try= ing to apply either retrospectively would be a big effort).

 

I realize this question may involve a legal opinion = on software licensing, so it may be difficult to answer publically, but we = agreed to check with you to see if the LF have any guidance which might hel= p us to reach a conclusion on this.



Tim

--_000_26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67626B59IRSMSX108gercor_--