From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: Licensing consistency Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 16:23:47 -0400 Message-ID: <20140606202347.GC13595@tuxdriver.com> References: <20140605185701.GD20841@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <0C5AFCA4B3408848ADF2A3073F7D8CC8594984C5@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" To: "Butler, Siobhan A" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0C5AFCA4B3408848ADF2A3073F7D8CC8594984C5-kPTMFJFq+rF9qrmMLTLiibfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 08:18:21PM +0000, Butler, Siobhan A wrote: > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Neil Horman > >Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:57 PM > >To: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org > >Subject: [dpdk-dev] Licensing consistency > > > >Hey all- > > One of the things that came up during the dpdk package review for Fedora was the inconsistency of License reporting in the upstream project. DPDK is >triple licensed, whcih isn't in and of itself a big deal, but indications of which file(s) are under which license is fairly scattered. For instance: > > > >1) The kni module has a GPLv2 license at the top of each file > > > >2) The kni MODULE_LICENSE macro indicates the license is dual BSD/GPLv2 > > > >3) The rte_kni_common.h file is licensed dual BSD/LGPL v2 > > > >4) The linux kernel modules for hardware pmds have no license file in them at all, but do have a README which contains a BSD license (though no clear >indicator that this license applies to the files in this directory). > > > > > >Theres several more examples of this, but the point is, its often not clear what bits fall under what license. Has any effort been made to consolodate licensing >here, or at least to make it consistent and clear where to find license information for a file? If not I would propose that all files in the DPDK be required to >carry the license that they are distributed under in the top of said file, and that we add a LICENSE file to the tree root indicating that each file contains its own >licensing terms. > > > >Thoughts? > >Neil > > Hi Neil, > I think you highlight some important points here regarding the > need for vigilance in licensing each part of the software and it is > something we should all be aware of when contributing to dpdk.org. > > I can assure you during the development of the features thus far, > a great deal of thought and care was applied in regard to keeping > the number of varying license to a minimum and to ensure that each > one is correct for purpose. Changes to the licensing made over time > have been carefully considered at each change. > > In relation to the files that have not got the license in the > actual file but instead in the corresponding Readme file - the license > applies to the files in the > directory unless otherwise clearly stated in the file itself. If > you have some suggestions as to how consistency can be better achieved > as the community grows and develops that would be great. Something just like what you said above added to a LICENSE file in the root directory of the project source would go a long way towards clarifying the licensing issues for the distributions that may want to package DPDK. John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville-2XuSBdqkA4R54TAoqtyWWQ@public.gmane.org might be all we have. Be ready.