From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B68442871; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 17:26:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3029840E6E; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 17:26:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-yb1-f179.google.com (mail-yb1-f179.google.com [209.85.219.179]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F0240DF8 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 17:26:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-yb1-f179.google.com with SMTP id cf7so23969329ybb.5 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 08:26:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; t=1680189975; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=HSpH3NplyDTvIab+18r03kmfi6PV3gU5jsDtwfiVcn4=; b=PJgGcnFqDM7LnSmJCYneYpqeDkyMTrYszTu3/T9Nlc62UtjDNm5WcV8OARbKr5vr5u S4txXTYBWYaUXkxhw48Gq9OpIjrPOs1zdwzY/DZDAxGKrG3Jn8MEuXWMf69z68Y9J7Tm 6duGwDRB5xLAOQRwvA8Bi9Q73Qcq1KcTyu2cmwQIsilfmUuVXSPF5nEM+r+GzvD1+kqg cRuEqP4kJbquZvDvJi2qy8Sqm9XINzR0hhjBSegVvyi+kZe8bwdsKfEyRXg+I1WgC66Z kRGZ3wu6jyFUyO+6m4ZVkh7y4AfsH8uAsdLwiP8p0gx3ByoYHd2WtzwbMvAS7fZAtCm4 aF/A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680189975; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=HSpH3NplyDTvIab+18r03kmfi6PV3gU5jsDtwfiVcn4=; b=uh5Pwaem8oC95FrfEvM+wBirrH4Oes4SvyO1WR1HK6Fn2ewQld1b/yDWDTwdf4DPh2 Wsn5zP34a5JIUzYpEQWMzTRJrqzgWoHI1f6p9WxjaWVA8atjEpZpD5ExSLSP175tHWF/ pvjjS6DIp4zm4/asZOjz9Fj7JN+gtZX2N5MOHuufS9a8N1URuWVX0GL9zTFhwfuCCcIq obfdjLpDJblXwlhOu++MScFvXZyyuNGEk517GLzkIBK9TIwvPEYStKgYdr7UNUkMYrA3 njGi4/ZWSENdGDtI35Du0PlRKHiGB9lrfmn0kj7Om9KvjOdIvWdGUxVXLt6bsQTP/GE6 k1Fw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9erNP/PurOf19NQMeG5K672fVt/e8cktc4Hds6WxyglQA0TTp0u fKIW2bXFIzXCafj5ejCDilX6Go0B1y2CTHauyBn/KA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350Y/w8grt1wTKMrj2o7cwO3x4gdwGCplTLQ/NN3empZHxTcweprvvHCXxlv5iU+bdu5bvIaVN1CUp3f0hNwhCRY= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:120c:b0:b74:77fa:581d with SMTP id s12-20020a056902120c00b00b7477fa581dmr12665823ybu.4.1680189974764; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 08:26:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230328020826.1269570-1-junfeng.guo@intel.com> <2436497.uoxibFcf9D@thomas> <9576586.lOV4Wx5bFT@thomas> In-Reply-To: <9576586.lOV4Wx5bFT@thomas> From: Rushil Gupta Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 08:26:03 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net/gve: update copyright holders To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Ferruh Yigit , "Zhang, Qi Z" , "Wu, Jingjing" , "Xing, Beilei" , "Guo, Junfeng" , "dev@dpdk.org" , Joshua Washington , Jeroen de Borst Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009a38be05f81fb67c" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org --0000000000009a38be05f81fb67c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 6:14=E2=80=AFAM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 30/03/2023 09:20, Guo, Junfeng: > > From: Thomas Monjalon > > > 28/03/2023 11:35, Guo, Junfeng: > > > > The background is that, in the past (DPDK 22.11) we didn't get the > > > approval > > > > of license from Google, thus chose the MIT License for the base cod= e, > > > and > > > > BSD-3 License for GVE common code (without the files in /base > folder). > > > > We also left the copyright holder of base code just to Google Inc, > and > > > made > > > > Intel as the copyright holder of GVE common code (without /base > > > folder). > > > > > > > > Today we are working together for GVE dev and maintaining. And we > > > got > > > > the approval of BSD-3 License from Google for the base code. > > > > Thus we dicided to 1) switch the License of GVE base code from MIT = to > > > BSD-3; > > > > 2) add Google LLC as one of the copyright holders for GVE common > > > code. > > > > > > Do you realize we had lenghty discussions in the Technical Board, > > > the Governing Board, and with lawyers, just for this unneeded > exception? > > > > > > Now looking at the patches, there seem to be some big mistakes like > > > removing some copyright. I don't understand how it can be taken so > > > lightly. > > > > > > I regret how fast we were, next time we will surely operate > differently. > > > If you want to improve the reputation of this driver, > > > please ask other copyright holders to be more active and responsive. > > > > > > > Really sorry for causing such severe trouble. > > > > Yes, we did take lots of efforts in the Technical Board and the Governi= ng > > Board about this MIT exception. We really appreciate that. > > > > About this patch set, it is my severe mistake to switch the MIT License > > directly for the upstream-ed code in community, in the wrong way. > > In the past we upstream-ed this driver with MIT License followed from > > the kernel community's gve driver base code. And now we want to > > use the code with BSD-3 License (approved by Google). > > So I suppose that the correct way may be 1) first remove all these code > > under MIT License and 2) then add the new files under BSD-3 License. > > The code under BSD is different of the MIT code? > If it is the same with a new approved license, you can just change the > license. > > > Please correct me if there are still misunderstanding in my statement. > > Thanks Thomas for pointing out my mistake. I'll be careful to fix this. > > > > Copyright holder for the gve base code will stay unchanged. Google LLC > > will be added as one of the copyright holders for the gve common code. > > @Rushil Gupta Please also be more active and responsive for the code > > review and contribution in the community. Thanks! > > > > We were just trying to comply with the BSD license to get rid of the exception. You have the MIT license for control path/admin-queue code. Since admin-queue path is similar across linux, freebsd and dpdk the code is similar but not exactly the same, We are about to upstream driver code to FreeBSD under BSD license as well so you will see this code under BSD license soon. I will consult the lawyers on my end as well. --0000000000009a38be05f81fb67c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 6:14=E2=80=AF= AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjal= on.net> wrote:
30/03/2023 09:20, Guo, Junfeng:
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > 28/03/2023 11:35, Guo, Junfeng:
> > > The background is that, in the past (DPDK 22.11) we didn'= ;t get the
> > approval
> > > of license from Google, thus chose the MIT License for the b= ase code,
> > and
> > > BSD-3 License for GVE common code (without the files in /bas= e folder).
> > > We also left the copyright holder of base code just to Googl= e Inc, and
> > made
> > > Intel as the copyright holder of GVE common code (without /b= ase
> > folder).
> > >
> > > Today we are working together for GVE dev and maintaining. A= nd we
> > got
> > > the approval of BSD-3 License from Google for the base code.=
> > > Thus we dicided to 1) switch the License of GVE base code fr= om MIT to
> > BSD-3;
> > > 2) add Google LLC as one of the copyright holders for GVE co= mmon
> > code.
> >
> > Do you realize we had lenghty discussions in the Technical Board,=
> > the Governing Board, and with lawyers, just for this unneeded exc= eption?
> >
> > Now looking at the patches, there seem to be some big mistakes li= ke
> > removing some copyright. I don't understand how it can be tak= en so
> > lightly.
> >
> > I regret how fast we were, next time we will surely operate diffe= rently.
> > If you want to improve the reputation of this driver,
> > please ask other copyright holders to be more active and responsi= ve.
> >
>
> Really sorry for causing such severe trouble.
>
> Yes, we did take lots of efforts in the Technical Board and the Govern= ing
> Board about this MIT exception. We really appreciate that.
>
> About this patch set, it is my severe mistake to switch the MIT Licens= e
> directly for the upstream-ed code in community, in the wrong way.
> In the past we upstream-ed this driver with MIT License followed from<= br> > the kernel community's gve driver base code. And now we want to > use the code with BSD-3 License (approved by Google).
> So I suppose that the correct way may be 1) first remove all these cod= e
> under MIT License and 2) then add the new files under BSD-3 License.
The code under BSD is different of the MIT code?
If it is the same with a new approved license, you can just change the lice= nse.

> Please correct me if there are still misunderstanding in my statement.=
> Thanks Thomas for pointing out my mistake. I'll be careful to fix = this.
>
> Copyright holder for the gve base code will stay unchanged. Google LLC=
> will be added as one of the copyright holders for the gve common code.=
> @Rushil Gupta Please also be more active and responsive for the code > review and contribution in the community. Thanks!



We were just trying to comply with the BSD license= to get rid=C2=A0of=C2=A0the=C2=A0exception. You have the MIT license for c= ontrol path/admin-queue code. Since admin-queue path is similar across linu= x, freebsd and dpdk the code is similar but not exactly the same,
We are about to upstream driver code to FreeBSD=C2=A0und= er BSD license as well so you will see this code under BSD license soon. I = will consult the lawyers on my end as well.=C2=A0
--0000000000009a38be05f81fb67c--