DPDK community structure changes
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ed Warnicke <hagbard@gmail.com>
To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
Cc: Michael Dolan <mdolan@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"moving@dpdk.org" <moving@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, November 29th
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 11:46:49 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFVSqg3Bg5YXW6iJ4TvLJpmgm8YOhkcNKN_n3hY_YCinpu6B0Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA676277F4@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.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 --]

  reply	other threads:[~2016-12-01 17:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-30 16:01 O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-11-30 17:10 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-30 22:08   ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-12-01  9:20     ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-12-01  9:40       ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-11-30 17:39 ` Michael Dolan
2016-11-30 20:55   ` Dave Neary
2016-12-01 17:40   ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-12-01 17:46     ` Ed Warnicke [this message]
2016-12-01 18:01     ` Michael Dolan
2016-12-01 18:41     ` Dave Neary
2016-12-01 18:50       ` Dave Neary
2016-12-01 19:09         ` Francois Ozog
2016-12-01 19:44           ` Michael Dolan
2016-12-01 20:20             ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-12-01 20:47               ` Wiles, Keith
2016-12-01 21:33           ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-12-02  9:00             ` Francois Ozog
2016-12-01 20:33       ` O'Driscoll, Tim

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAFVSqg3Bg5YXW6iJ4TvLJpmgm8YOhkcNKN_n3hY_YCinpu6B0Q@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=hagbard@gmail.com \
    --cc=mdolan@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=moving@dpdk.org \
    --cc=tim.odriscoll@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

DPDK community structure changes

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/moving/0 moving/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 moving moving/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/moving \
		moving@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index moving

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.moving


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git