...
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, I think this is a perfect example of why I'm suggesting we get all of your counsel on a call together to discuss. The default for Apache 2 was to use a CLA in combination. That's precisely why the Apache CCLA and ICLA agreements exist.

The issue I think some are missing is not all CLAs are the same and have very different purposes. Node.js under Joyent's stewardship tried to patch over the BSD license with a CLA and it caused a lot of issues and they ultimately abandoned the CLA entirely - but now they don't have the protections offered by the CLA going forward and have to figure out what to do.

The best path forward IMO is to have everyone on a call with their counsel and we can discuss how to move forward. I don't have confidence everyone here understands the full implications of what their being asked to decide - this isn't a trivial detail to change things. Relaying to counsel and coming back with an answer is also not ideal as those who are entrusted to provide legal guidance are not at the table of discussion and may not understand the full context.

A further option is to have the Governing Board resolve this later. We'll know who the decision makers are and can work with their counsel to figure this out if it's an issue the GB thinks needs addressed.

-- Mike
 

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
>