From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [143.182.124.21]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF11683A for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 22:18:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga101.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Jun 2014 13:18:29 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,991,1392192000"; d="scan'208";a="442122494" Received: from irsmsx104.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.159]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Jun 2014 13:18:23 -0700 Received: from irsmsx101.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.245]) by IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.136]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 21:18:22 +0100 From: "Butler, Siobhan A" To: Neil Horman , "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] Licensing consistency Thread-Index: AQHPgPALUQ5b9mL/0EaidZ/uWvW3pJtkhSVQ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 20:18:21 +0000 Message-ID: <0C5AFCA4B3408848ADF2A3073F7D8CC8594984C5@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20140605185701.GD20841@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> In-Reply-To: <20140605185701.GD20841@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Licensing consistency X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 20:18:17 -0000 >-----Original Message----- >From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Neil Horman >Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:57 PM >To: dev@dpdk.org >Subject: [dpdk-dev] Licensing consistency > >Hey all- > One of the things that came up during the dpdk package review for Fedora = was the inconsistency of License reporting in the upstream project. DPDK i= s >triple licensed, whcih isn't in and of itself a big deal, but indication= s of which file(s) are under which license is fairly scattered. For instan= ce: > >1) The kni module has a GPLv2 license at the top of each file > >2) The kni MODULE_LICENSE macro indicates the license is dual BSD/GPLv2 > >3) The rte_kni_common.h file is licensed dual BSD/LGPL v2 > >4) The linux kernel modules for hardware pmds have no license file in them= at all, but do have a README which contains a BSD license (though no clear= >indicator that this license applies to the files in this directory). > > >Theres several more examples of this, but the point is, its often not clea= r what bits fall under what license. Has any effort been made to consoloda= te licensing >here, or at least to make it consistent and clear where to fi= nd license information for a file? If not I would propose that all files i= n the DPDK be required to >carry the license that they are distributed unde= r in the top of said file, and that we add a LICENSE file to the tree root = indicating that each file contains its own >licensing terms. > >Thoughts? >Neil =20 Hi Neil,=20 I think you highlight some important points here regarding the need for vig= ilance in licensing each part of the software and it is something we should= all be aware of when contributing to dpdk.org.=20 I can assure you during the development of the features thus far, a great d= eal of thought and care was applied in regard to keeping the number of vary= ing license to a minimum and to ensure that each one is correct for purpose= . Changes to the licensing made over time have been carefully considered at= each change. In relation to the files that have not got the license in the actual file b= ut instead in the corresponding Readme file - the license applies to the fi= les in the=20 directory unless otherwise clearly stated in the file itself. If you have s= ome suggestions as to how consistency can be better achieved as the communi= ty grows and develops that would be great. Thanks Siobhan