Re: [dpdk-dev] Licensing consistency

["John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>]

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.