From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vk0-f45.google.com (mail-vk0-f45.google.com [209.85.213.45]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2143758CE for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 19:01:17 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-vk0-f45.google.com with SMTP id x186so132812572vkd.1 for ; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 10:01:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fmsbeBXBXkzraSZNRgOEML8Ni0nP6ZCvWN/KS1k1OFg=; b=IWMfqpQJSsfetYuOkaX5ko11kT4MN9+viUc0MSD01dNK7PuSyXdAXtgnW7VCDjVEDu zv82Kbxzl6WXu2C3Jyjj5U9D0omsfXSV2ZJbnSFnMZQ1XtqMesMFl13BKwgaDdZ72WZD 8L1+IdZFw1ivNZz42fewrshKiBsSNHXuz+zM4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fmsbeBXBXkzraSZNRgOEML8Ni0nP6ZCvWN/KS1k1OFg=; b=c8scUjRoOcZ+ncbE7o8bC3KUXwGpmhTLNsioV+KRbtd78ZN98ccnHJie9ylGfeP/NF sLeRc/FBdC4AcYFbI5FEwHdvXmKKT+B+6RxdaOSt4+MPxHWblIZqEunL2mwqd0FN7ij5 aMwlHmhl+LBlHpHWqsIxnZii/0M5PCn7jkenLKcrxO29zlk1B7p7JjNn3AHCMAHkGZg6 O5FHdptgQwErWWQgktcHra7jvgl2K6YX3mtlb2diOi0EutJYlm4RrCHQ8suR0dQU9b6K S4rQgUlwSDM3ZhxKqgSABosnDz2o+UUVSt7kNAxREyH4ex0IFEFe47xCc9Wuj3W/r7NV 6OnQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03kFrHaJ1mLcfYhaEXGjbQpgl8DoKdGYX+me/insKtxCiguUJ94qYBLUj5ZRH0HIq8nuALRhUvDOodLvmsy X-Received: by 10.31.222.1 with SMTP id v1mr15263877vkg.54.1480615277247; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 10:01:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.3.79 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 10:01:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA676277F4@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67626AEE@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA676277F4@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> From: Michael Dolan Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 13:01:16 -0500 Message-ID: To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" Cc: "moving@dpdk.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0cccc2a6ac0b05429c9ba1 Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, November 29th 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: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 18:01:18 -0000 --94eb2c0cccc2a6ac0b05429c9ba1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > ... > Note that I=E2=80=99m 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 > > 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 t= o > 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 proje= ct > 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 coul= d > 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 woul= d > probably be best if we push any further discussion on this to a small gro= up > of your legal counsel as the various levers have different implications a= nd > I'm uncomfortable continuing this discussion without your counsel being > involved. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mike > > > --94eb2c0cccc2a6ac0b05429c9ba1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=
...
Note that I=E2=80=99m assuming that the combination of Apache 2 and a CLA i= sn't an option because this seems redundant as both include patent prot= ection. Maybe there are other reasons that would make this a valid combinat= ion 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 co= mbination. That's precisely why the Apache CCLA and ICLA agreements exi= st.

The issue I think some are missing is not all = CLAs are the same and have very different purposes. Node.js under Joyent= 9;s stewardship tried to patch over the BSD license with a CLA and it cause= d 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 ha= ve 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 ho= w to move forward. I don't have confidence everyone here understands th= e 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 a= n answer is also not ideal as those who are entrusted to provide legal guid= ance are not at the table of discussion and may not understand the full con= text.

A further option is to have the Governing Bo= ard 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 thin= ks needs addressed.

-- Mike
=C2=A0
=

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 Fou= ndation" call, November 29th
>
> Hi Tim, sorry I couldn&= #39;t make it with a LF Board meeting conflict yesterday. As for 1), most/a= ll of our projects facing this issue decide to go Apache 2. A CLA is less p= referably particularly with the BSD license. Where we do use a CLA on a pro= ject it's usually the same as the Apache CCLA/ICLA and that combined wi= th the BSD license will I'm fairly certain not achieve what Linaro lega= l 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 projec= t 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 cou= ld just required Apache 2 on any future contributions and keep the prior BS= D if the relicensing is not agreeable to others.
>
> Just some thoughts on how other projects tackled this question. It wou= ld probably be best if we push any further discussion on this to a small gr= oup 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
>

--94eb2c0cccc2a6ac0b05429c9ba1--