RE: [PATCH 2/2] net/gve: update copyright holders

["Guo, Junfeng" <junfeng.guo@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 21:14
> To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
> <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Xing,
> Beilei <beilei.xing@intel.com>; Rushil Gupta <rushilg@google.com>; Guo,
> Junfeng <junfeng.guo@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Joshua Washington <joshwash@google.com>; Jeroen
> de Borst <jeroendb@google.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net/gve: update copyright holders
> 
> 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 base
> code,
> > > 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 Governing
> > 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.

For this patch set, the code lines remain unchanged.
We want to use BSD licensed source files to replace the MIT licensed ones.
This patch set is mainly used to for the license related purpose.

You can check the latest v4 patch set:
https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=27570&state=*

Sorry about the misleading titles and statements in this patch set, that
cause the misunderstanding of changing license/copyright unconsidered.

As Rushil replied, Google is about to upstream driver code to FreeBSD 
under BSD license as well so we will see this code under BSD license soon. 
And he will consult the lawyers on his end as well.

Thanks

> 
> > 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!
> 
>