Re: [PATCH rdma-core] Improve global COPYING files

[Leon Romanovsky <leon-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2342 bytes --]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 09:24:12AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:06:55AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:13:40PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > Upon deeper analysis it seems there are two variations of the 'OpenIB.org BSD
> > > license', I am calling them the MIT and FreeBSD variants. They differ only in
> > > the text of the disclaimer. The MIT version is used widely as the source
> > > license so that version should be the 'default' in the source tree, not the
> > > FreeBSD version I had selected initially.
> > >
> > > Retain the FreeBSD version as we will refer to it in future commits.
> > >
> > > Elaborate the COPYING file to discuss the license situation in
> > > more depth.
> >
> > I doubt that we have appropriate knowledge to come with meaningful
> > conclusion after "discussion". It is legal issue which should be
> > handled by relevant legal departments.
>
> Hi Leon,
>
> I think the commit message was not clear, let me try again:
>
> [PATCH] Document copyright situation and select default license
>
> This patch is not intended to change the copyright or license
> situation of any of the original code.
>
> Documentation is provided that identifies the various licenses we
> have in the source tree.
>
> The default license for new items after the 'Initial commit' merge is
> corrected to match the majority license already in use. This is the
> license we recommend all new code use. This corrects a mistake I made
> in the 'Unified CMake build system' patch which selected the wrong
> license file.
>
> Also provide specific guidance on how the 18 different COPYING files
> and per-file copyright headers are intended to be interpreted
> within the merged tree.
>
> =======
>
> As you know I've sent emails to various parties on licensing issues,
> as those issues are corrected we can update the tree and the copying
> summary.
>
> We've already had success correcting one mistake from Intel and
> Chelsio, thank you very much to those companies.
>
> It is important we clearly document the current situation so our
> downstreams can properly distribute this code.

I sure that this question will sound dumb for you, but can we unify all
code under OFA's licenses (dual-license)? I don't feel comfortable with
this multi-license situation.

>
> Jason

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]