* Re: [dpdk-moving] [legal]
2016-10-26 15:49 ` Dumitrescu, Cristian
@ 2016-10-26 16:47 ` Francois Ozog
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Francois Ozog @ 2016-10-26 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dumitrescu, Cristian; +Cc: moving
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3807 bytes --]
Hi Cristian,
I am not a lawyer and I am out of my league here. That said, we all know
that NDA's cannot be executed by any employee of a company. So, the DPDK
signoff is nice, but why implement a policy that is less binding for
something that may be involving very high liability issues?
DPDK says precisely "The purpose of the signoff is explained in the
Developer’s Certificate of Origin section of the Linux kernel guidelines.".
The following note says the contributor has to "understand" DCO...
So unless I have missed something, nothing says that a contributor SHALL
COMPLY to anything. And even if you change the sentences to include the
word comply:
- their should be a DPDK DCO not a pointer to some external project
- do you have properly recorded in your books a paer signed by an
authorized representative of a company ?
- the DCO itslef is somewhat loose: "The contribution is based upon
previous work that, to the best of my knowledge, is covered under an
appropriate open source license". It does not say it is:
. free from patents
. free to use in large scale production by an end customer (not a
developper). Or more precisely, the developper (say the NEP) has the right
to sell and the customer (the operator) has been transfered the right to
use.
Bottom line, it is desirable that companies properly engage their
responsability for licence, patents and copyright aspects.
The CLA should be signed by each contributor company at the moment of
joining: the company liability is engaged, not just the employee when
submitting patches.
There is probably some additional statement to be done for already
contributed code.
FF
On 26 October 2016 at 17:49, Dumitrescu, Cristian <
cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Francois- Frederic,
>
>
>
> A few questions to clarify my confusion:
>
>
>
> · Is every DPDK contributor expected to sign one of these forms
> before being allowed to contribute code?
>
>
>
> · Is every DPDK contributor expected to sign this form only once
> at the time of joining DPDK community or once for every patch its submits?
>
>
>
> · What is wrong with the current DPDK.org signoff process which is
> the mechanism that certifies the origin of the code and the applicable
> license? Maybe we just need to expand the description on dpdk.org/dev a
> bit?
>
>
>
> Before sending a patch, be sure that there is no licensing issue. The
> commit log must have a *Signed-off-by* line (*--signoff* option). It
> certifies that you wrote it and/or have the right to send it.
> For a longer explanation, see the *Developer's Certificate of Origin* in Linux
> guidelines <http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches>.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Cristian
>
>
>
> *From:* moving [mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org] *On Behalf Of *Francois
> Ozog
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 26, 2016 4:03 PM
> *To:* moving@dpdk.org
> *Subject:* [dpdk-moving] [legal]
>
>
>
> As part of the legal work, here is the CLA that we use at Linaro and
> passed lawyers from many networking organizations (Cisco, Ericsson, Nokia,
> Huawei, ZTE, Broadcom, TI, Cavium, NXP, ENEA, WindRiver, Monta Vista, ARM)
>
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8xTReYFXqNtR0wwRUhqUEpwTUE/preview
>
>
>
> I think this can be a good base for DPDK.
>
>
>
> FF
>
>
>
> --
>
> [image: Linaro] <http://www.linaro.org/>
>
> *François-Frédéric Ozog* | *Director Linaro Networking Group*
>
> T: +33.67221.6485
> francois.ozog@linaro.org | Skype: ffozog
>
>
>
>
>
--
[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: 11695 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread