Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, November 29th

[Michael Dolan <mdolan@linuxfoundation.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3099 bytes --]

Can we setup a call next week with the counsel for the major contributors?
If it's 7-9 companies this shouldn't be difficult to resolve. I hate to be
difficult but this topic will not be resolved on a public mailing list
unless everyone is willing to punt on the issue until there is a governing
board to make the decision.

I am willing to schedule and host the call. I just need the names and
emails of your counsel. Please email me directly and not on the list.

Thanks,

Mike

---
Mike Dolan
VP of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
Office: +1.330.460.3250   Cell: +1.440.552.5322  Skype: michaelkdolan
mdolan@linuxfoundation.org
---

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Francois Ozog <francois.ozog@linaro.org>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> please find the Linaro CLA that passed many large companies lawyers for
> IP: http://opendataplane.org/contributor/individual/
>
> Compnies that already signed it (not all are listed): ARM, Broadcom,
> Canonical, Cavium, Cisco, Comcast, Ericsson, ENEA, Facebook, Hisilicon, HP
> Enterprise, Huawei, MontaVista, Nokia, NXP, Qualcomm, RedHat, Samsung,
> Socionext, Spreadtrum, ST microelectronics, Texas Instruments, Wind River,
> ZTE
>
> I wonder how to read "Need for a CLA is a problem for some contributors
> due to the need to get legal approval."
>
> Is it: "let's mask the problem to lawyers because they may NOT allow us to
> continue our technical fun?" or is it "this is just a burden that may take
> long and I don't want to lose time".
>
> Cordially,
>
> FF
>
> On 1 December 2016 at 19:50, Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 12/01/2016 01:41 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > The Apache Software Foundation requires CLAs with copyright assignment
>> > to the foundation for official Apache projects - this is to allow for
>> > future license changes (an Apache v3 license), and also reflects some of
>> > the difficulties of a 30 year old project (several of the original
>> > copyright holders are no longer with the project, or have died, and the
>> > succession rights for copyright materials can sometimes result in
>> > unfortunate conflicts between the estates and open source projects).
>>
>> A small but important correction: The ASF CLA is a grant of a broad
>> copyright license which allows, among other things, the ASF to
>> redistribute the software under a different license. It is not a
>> copyright assignment.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dave.
>>
>> --
>> Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy
>> Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com
>> Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338
>>
>
>
>
> --
> [image: Linaro] <http://www.linaro.org/>
> François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Networking Group*
> T: +33.67221.6485
> francois.ozog@linaro.org | Skype: ffozog
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6327 bytes --]