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 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 > > 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 > > >