Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, November 29th

[Michael Dolan <mdolan@linuxfoundation.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3138 bytes --]

> ...
> Note that I’m assuming that the combination of Apache 2 and a CLA isn't an
> option because this seems redundant as both include patent protection.
> Maybe there are other reasons that would make this a valid combination
> though.
> ...
>

Tim, I think this is a perfect example of why I'm suggesting we get all of
your counsel on a call together to discuss. The default for Apache 2 was to
use a CLA in combination. That's precisely why the Apache CCLA and ICLA
agreements exist.

The issue I think some are missing is not all CLAs are the same and have
very different purposes. Node.js under Joyent's stewardship tried to patch
over the BSD license with a CLA and it caused a lot of issues and they
ultimately abandoned the CLA entirely - but now they don't have the
protections offered by the CLA going forward and have to figure out what to
do.

The best path forward IMO is to have everyone on a call with their counsel
and we can discuss how to move forward. I don't have confidence everyone
here understands the full implications of what their being asked to decide
- this isn't a trivial detail to change things. Relaying to counsel and
coming back with an answer is also not ideal as those who are entrusted to
provide legal guidance are not at the table of discussion and may not
understand the full context.

A further option is to have the Governing Board resolve this later. We'll
know who the decision makers are and can work with their counsel to figure
this out if it's an issue the GB thinks needs addressed.

-- Mike


>
> Tim
>
> > From: Michael Dolan [mailto:mdolan@linuxfoundation.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 5:39 PM
> > To: O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
> > Cc: moving@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux
> Foundation" call, November 29th
> >
> > Hi Tim, sorry I couldn't make it with a LF Board meeting conflict
> yesterday. As for 1), most/all of our projects facing this issue decide to
> go Apache 2. A CLA is less preferably particularly with the BSD license.
> Where we do use a CLA on a project it's usually the same as the Apache
> CCLA/ICLA and that combined with the BSD license will I'm fairly certain
> not achieve what Linaro legal is probably concerned about.
> >
> > My guess is the members here are 90% or more of the contributors and a
> relicensing effort could be done within a reasonable timeframe. The project
> could also start under the LF with all new contributions under the Apache 2
> license which is compatible with all prior BSD contributions. Or you could
> just required Apache 2 on any future contributions and keep the prior BSD
> if the relicensing is not agreeable to others.
> >
> > Just some thoughts on how other projects tackled this question. It would
> probably be best if we push any further discussion on this to a small group
> of your legal counsel as the various levers have different implications and
> I'm uncomfortable continuing this discussion without your counsel being
> involved.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mike
> >
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3882 bytes --]