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

[Ed Warnicke <hagbard@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4836 bytes --]

A major disadvantage to all of the CLA+BSD options in terms of covering
patent issues is: most people look to the license for comfort on patent
issues, and so the CLA doesn't *really* buy us any comfort for most
downstream consumers on those issues.

Ed

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 11:40 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Mike. I realise you can’t say too much in public about what is
> essentially a legal issue.
>
> To summarise, these are the options we seem to have:
>
> 1. Continue with BSD license and DCO:
> Advantages: Easy (nothing changes). This combination has worked well for
> several years with many companies contributing to the project and deploying
> DPDK-based solutions. No CLA required.
> Disadvantages: Some Linaro members may not be able to contribute and/or
> deploy DPDK-based solutions.
>
> 2. Use Apache 2 for new contributions:
> Advantages: It’s a fairly easy change. Provides patent protection for new
> contributions. No CLA required.
> Disadvantages: Doesn’t cover the existing DPDK code so the actual benefit
> of this is very small.
>
> 3. Use Apache 2 and re-license existing code:
> Advantages: Patent protection for everything. No CLA required.
> Disadvantage: We need to re-license everything. I suspect that’s a big
> effort and it will be very difficult to get agreement from everybody who's
> contributed. We would also need to consider DPDK code that’s dual-licensed.
> We have some code that’s dual BSD-GPLv2. IANAL, and I'm far from an expert
> on SW licensing, but I think Apache 2 is not compatible with GPLv2, so this
> might need to become Apache 2/GPLv3.
>
> 4. Use BSD and CLA:
> Advantages: No license change. Provides patent protection for new
> contributions.
> Disadvantages: Doesn’t cover the existing DPDK code so the actual benefit
> of this is very small. Need for a CLA is a problem for some contributors
> due to the need to get legal approval. Mike expressed concerns below about
> the combination of the Apache CLA and BSD license, so we'd need to create
> and agree a custom CLA.
>
> 5. Use BSD and CLA, and have the CLA apply retrospectively to existing
> code:
> Advantages: No license change. Patent protection for everything.
> Disadvantages: Don't know if this is even possible - can a CLA apply
> retrospectively to existing code? Need for a CLA is a problem for some
> contributors due to the need to get legal approval (presumably an even
> bigger problem if the CLA applies retrospectively). Mike expressed concerns
> below about the combination of the Apache CLA and BSD license, so we'd need
> to create and agree a custom CLA. Same logistical issues as for
> re-licensing - we'd need to track down and get agreement from all previous
> contributors.
>
> 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.
>
> We do need to reach a conclusion on this and move forward. We should aim
> to resolve it at next week's meeting, so people should consider their
> position in advance of that. My vote would be for option 1.
>
>
> 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
> >
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5456 bytes --]