[dpdk-dev] Licensing consistency

[dpdk-dev] Licensing consistency

[Neil Horman]

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 is
triple licensed, whcih isn't in and of itself a big deal, but indications of
which file(s) are under which license is fairly scattered.  For instance:

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 clear what
bits fall under what license.  Has any effort been made to consolodate licensing
here, or at least to make it consistent and clear where to find license
information for a file?  If not I would propose that all files in the DPDK be
required to carry the license that they are distributed under 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
 

Re: [dpdk-dev] Licensing consistency

[Butler, Siobhan A]

>-----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 is >triple licensed, whcih isn't in and of itself a big deal, but indications of which file(s) are under which license is fairly scattered.  For instance:
>
>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 clear what bits fall under what license.  Has any effort been made to consolodate licensing >here, or at least to make it consistent and clear where to find license information for a file?  If not I would propose that all files in the DPDK be required to >carry the license that they are distributed under 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
 
Hi Neil, 
I think you highlight some important points here regarding the need for vigilance in licensing each part of the software and it is something we should all be aware of when contributing to dpdk.org. 

I can assure you during the development of the features thus far, a great deal of thought and care was applied in regard to keeping the number of varying 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 but instead in the corresponding Readme file - the license applies to the files in the 
directory unless otherwise clearly stated in the file itself. If you have some suggestions as to how consistency can be better achieved as the community grows and develops that would be great.

Thanks
Siobhan

Re: [dpdk-dev] Licensing consistency

[John W. Linville]

On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 08:18:21PM +0000, Butler, Siobhan A wrote:
> 
> 
> >-----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 is >triple licensed, whcih isn't in and of itself a big deal, but indications of which file(s) are under which license is fairly scattered.  For instance:
> >
> >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 clear what bits fall under what license.  Has any effort been made to consolodate licensing >here, or at least to make it consistent and clear where to find license information for a file?  If not I would propose that all files in the DPDK be required to >carry the license that they are distributed under 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
>  
> Hi Neil, 
> I think you highlight some important points here regarding the
> need for vigilance in licensing each part of the software and it is
> something we should all be aware of when contributing to dpdk.org.
> 
> I can assure you during the development of the features thus far,
> a great deal of thought and care was applied in regard to keeping
> the number of varying 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 but instead in the corresponding Readme file - the license
> applies to the files in the
> directory unless otherwise clearly stated in the file itself. If
> you have some suggestions as to how consistency can be better achieved
> as the community grows and develops that would be great.

Something just like what you said above added to a LICENSE file in
the root directory of the project source would go a long way towards
clarifying the licensing issues for the distributions that may want
to package DPDK.

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.

Re: [dpdk-dev] Licensing consistency

[Neil Horman]

On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 04:23:47PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 08:18:21PM +0000, Butler, Siobhan A wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > >-----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 is >triple licensed, whcih isn't in and of itself a big deal, but indications of which file(s) are under which license is fairly scattered.  For instance:
> > >
> > >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 clear what bits fall under what license.  Has any effort been made to consolodate licensing >here, or at least to make it consistent and clear where to find license information for a file?  If not I would propose that all files in the DPDK be required to >carry the license that they are distributed under 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
> >  
> > Hi Neil, 
> > I think you highlight some important points here regarding the
> > need for vigilance in licensing each part of the software and it is
> > something we should all be aware of when contributing to dpdk.org.
> > 
> > I can assure you during the development of the features thus far,
> > a great deal of thought and care was applied in regard to keeping
> > the number of varying 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 but instead in the corresponding Readme file - the license
> > applies to the files in the
> > directory unless otherwise clearly stated in the file itself. If
> > you have some suggestions as to how consistency can be better achieved
> > as the community grows and develops that would be great.
> 
> Something just like what you said above added to a LICENSE file in
> the root directory of the project source would go a long way towards
> clarifying the licensing issues for the distributions that may want
> to package DPDK.
> 

+1, my suggestion was in the origional post, that each file contain its own
license in the header, with a top level LICENSE file indicating that rule.  Its
fine to have multiple licences, but when you have different directories contain
not only different licenses, but different canonical locations to determine what
that license is, things get a bit dicey (especially in the case of the kernel
drivers, that are under BSD license here, but under GPL license in linux).

Neil

> John
> -- 
> John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
> linville@tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.
>