From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FE5458E4 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 20:56:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hmsreliant.think-freely.org ([2001:470:8:a08:7aac:c0ff:fec2:933b] helo=localhost) by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1WscqU-0002Cw-72 for dev@dpdk.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 14:57:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:57:01 -0400 From: Neil Horman To: dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20140605185701.GD20841@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Status: No Subject: [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: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:56:54 -0000 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