...
Note that I’m assuming that the combination of Apache 2 and a CLA isn't an option because this seems redundant as both include patent protection. Maybe there are other reasons that would make this a valid combination though.
...
Tim
> From: Michael Dolan [mailto:mdolan@linuxfoundation.org ]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 5:39 PM
> To: O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
> Cc: moving@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, November 29th
>
> Hi Tim, sorry I couldn't make it with a LF Board meeting conflict yesterday. As for 1), most/all of our projects facing this issue decide to go Apache 2. A CLA is less preferably particularly with the BSD license. Where we do use a CLA on a project it's usually the same as the Apache CCLA/ICLA and that combined with the BSD license will I'm fairly certain not achieve what Linaro legal is probably concerned about.
>
> My guess is the members here are 90% or more of the contributors and a relicensing effort could be done within a reasonable timeframe. The project could also start under the LF with all new contributions under the Apache 2 license which is compatible with all prior BSD contributions. Or you could just required Apache 2 on any future contributions and keep the prior BSD if the relicensing is not agreeable to others.
>
> Just some thoughts on how other projects tackled this question. It would probably be best if we push any further discussion on this to a small group of your legal counsel as the various levers have different implications and I'm uncomfortable continuing this discussion without your counsel being involved.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>