From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-f174.google.com (mail-qt0-f174.google.com [209.85.216.174]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D0612A8 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 19:20:03 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-qt0-f174.google.com with SMTP id n6so46866797qtd.1 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:20:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6vY4wW5Xj2nMEqQb7ikAY18+VGMlChGpcNPICiN/U98=; b=tWkWNH+VO2p2n3iabPEg2rH2DJpeiTVE5caZbg4wiFoAfUAaEf3a7J/8iWnMXc4zi7 YgUqkmHZ223bEtiTuEPmNN0VDREPnMqYOZHJaUanE2TtsnxU3ekoTbpvF722AQJt5VgF 6v3C4z1fz2q/dqb5ZLBpJNMekDBYN/vo9LGsvqZKxtFCP0q3yQEselrUqUjbpb+iA8d9 SBvlIgW75SA+u9oxf9phLRIOTNc59HOdRlMwK/mX5Fpe8aMqkATFhNX4reM5s7dO/YBe Znm1hjDPC6uWAVegvgsXWRq8fmhg4M1j2iE8MJ7mZaw/6m7AjVGX5RujMQZHgpMevEsc e34w== 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=6vY4wW5Xj2nMEqQb7ikAY18+VGMlChGpcNPICiN/U98=; b=FCsd5oc0MaFQG4tpfoPkR/D+Mi0Gei6J5DijCAztbhiJMNM+WeH+l1V9CiUyXcujS5 ZrV37EQVRWyPTcN5MsDbINOGfd7859+iMLR0C0brdsEJGBR9xSn/K7be+nDtUnF4syFV S3V1sayWUAxRBezRBQLDdkOpfdm7vcjZ0SLjdrepCO/cwWxj8EX2LM+uXYYJNodbQbtF GF7yg/Cb2omG+aS+CjR5mDtnmjXc4deo/qch+bXySFhnuMxJDQeg58XB9g4oKsuHM+BL NCnPfSofujn8xuFuJ4Tlxp7RKpPUghPuoqfjKNRz2/FXMeh32mFZZyJ0rWiLixKn97KP nW5w== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03AZEV5HZtJwm8KDDihrsmA8a7WVxkL+S6gI+lGKNwv+K4wcKJuiG5euS1E+So6PNI86nBUMufObh8K+w== X-Received: by 10.237.41.39 with SMTP id s36mr3271157qtd.90.1480011602739; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:20:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.200.41.61 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:20:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1589784a738.27fc.bb328046f2889bc8f44aafa891a44dd2@6wind.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67622717@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <583617A4.4000400@redhat.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67623D9E@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <1540534.G53vByIeVs@xps13> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67623FF8@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <1589784a738.27fc.bb328046f2889bc8f44aafa891a44dd2@6wind.com> From: Ed Warnicke Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:20:02 -0600 Message-ID: To: Vincent Jardin Cc: "O'Driscoll, Tim" , Matt Spencer , Thomas Monjalon , Dave Neary , moving@dpdk.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c06ea9ed84fa50542100d60 Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter 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, 24 Nov 2016 18:20:03 -0000 --94eb2c06ea9ed84fa50542100d60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Speaking as someone who's been involved in thousands of discussions over more than a decade evaluating issues like patent risk in consuming open source software, I don't see a patent clause in a CLA offering any realistic assurance to a downstream consumer. Were I involved in a discussion around patent risk in DPDK, I would point to its license. That said (and keeping in mind that IANAL), I do *not* see any patent protection in the BSD license similar to what one sees in the Apache 2 license, or the Eclipse Public License. Please note: I am not advocating here for a license change, just drawing attention to my perspective as someone who's been deeply involved in such things for a long time. Ed On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Vincent Jardin wrote: > Matt, > > Please explain why you think that contributions under BSD licenses are not > proper contributions for patents. For instance, Free/Net/OpenBSD do not > require any CLA so contribution process remains smooth. > > Thank you, > > > > --94eb2c06ea9ed84fa50542100d60 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Speaking as someone who's been involved in thousands o= f discussions over more than a decade evaluating issues like patent risk in= consuming open source software, I don't see a patent clause in a CLA o= ffering any realistic assurance to a downstream consumer.

Were I involved in a discussion around patent risk in DPDK, I would point= to its license.

That said (and keeping in mind th= at IANAL), I do *not* see any patent protection in the BSD license similar = to what one sees in the Apache 2 license, or the Eclipse Public License.=C2= =A0 Please note: I am not advocating here for a license change, just drawin= g attention to my perspective as someone who's been deeply involved in = such things for a long time.

Ed

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at = 12:07 PM, Vincent Jardin <vincent.jardin@6wind.com> w= rote:
Matt,

Please explain why you think that contributions under BSD licenses are not = proper contributions for patents. For instance, Free/Net/OpenBSD do not req= uire any CLA so contribution process remains smooth.

Thank you,




--94eb2c06ea9ed84fa50542100d60--