Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter

[Vincent Jardin <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1198 bytes --]

Again: please explain in case of *BSD OSes ?


Le 24 novembre 2016 19:20:03 Ed Warnicke <hagbard@gmail.com> a écrit :

> Speaking as someone who's been involved in thousands of discussions over
> more than a decade evaluating issues like patent risk in consuming open
> source software, I don't see a patent clause in a CLA offering any
> realistic assurance to a downstream consumer.
>
> Were I involved in a discussion around patent risk in DPDK, I would point
> to its license.
>
> That said (and keeping in mind that IANAL), I do *not* see any patent
> protection in the BSD license similar to what one sees in the Apache 2
> license, or the Eclipse Public License.  Please note: I am not advocating
> here for a license change, just drawing attention to my perspective as
> someone who's been deeply involved in such things for a long time.
>
> Ed
>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Vincent Jardin <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Matt,
>>
>> Please explain why you think that contributions under BSD licenses are not
>> proper contributions for patents. For instance, Free/Net/OpenBSD do not
>> require any CLA so contribution process remains smooth.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>>
>>
>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1991 bytes --]