From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hemant Agrawal Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] doc: Add documents for AMD XGBE Ethernet Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 16:09:51 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1505324838-25734-1-git-send-email-ravi1.kumar@amd.com> <3789757.fNjoqSFDKv@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" To: "Shippen, Greg" , "Kumar, Ravi1" , Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from EUR01-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-he1eur01on0075.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.0.75]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B331AEEE for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2017 17:09:53 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" HI Shippen, DPDK is a BSD licensed projects unlike Linux kernel. BSD is very permissiv= e license. I am not a lawyer, I am just afraid that including a proprietary license sh= ould not have any implications on DPDK project. We are planning to move to= SPDX based license identifiers to clearly mark file license instead of put= ting the whole license text in the source files.=20 1. We will need an statement from Synopsys that they agree to include this= code as "BSD-3 clause" license. 2. In near future, you will be asked to remove the Complete License statem= ent and the files will be identified under SPDK tag for BSD-3 Clause licens= e (or Dual BSD-3/GPLv2). Note - your copyrights will remain intact. If you don't agree to any of the above, we have to go to Gov Board for exc= eption approval and may be to LF Legal for advice. It is going to take tim= e. Regards, Hemant > -----Original Message----- > From: Shippen, Greg [mailto:Greg.Shippen@amd.com] > Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 11:48 AM > To: Hemant Agrawal ; Kumar, Ravi1 > ; Thomas Monjalon > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] doc: Add documents for AMD XGBE > Ethernet >=20 > Hemant: >=20 > I am working the changes we are asking for on the BSD license. With > respect to the Synopsys license text. They are telling me that similar h= eader > concerns were raised from linux .org and they were OK keeping the header = if > an author signoff-off text was included. Would that be sufficient for > dpdk.org with respect to the Synopsys text? >=20 > Greg >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Hemant Agrawal [mailto:hemant.agrawal@nxp.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:08 PM > To: Shippen, Greg ; Kumar, Ravi1 > ; Thomas Monjalon > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] doc: Add documents for AMD XGBE > Ethernet >=20 > HI Greg, > There is no restriction on sending the code to DPDK for public > review and it is up to the respective maintainers to provide comments. >=20 > However, your patches can not be merged to DPDK and it's next trees till > the Licensing issues are sorted out. >=20 > Regards, > Hemant >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Shippen, Greg [mailto:Greg.Shippen@amd.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:16 PM > > To: Kumar, Ravi1 ; Thomas Monjalon > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Hemant Agrawal > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] doc: Add documents for AMD XGBE > > Ethernet > > > > Hement: > > > > I'd like to understand whether we can get dpdk.org some early code for > > review in parallel with our efforts to resolve the licensing issue. > > To answer this question, I need to understand what happens if we sent > > you v2 before the end of the month? Is the code visible to all > > dpdk.org and the public or just to internal reviewers? > > > > Greg > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kumar, Ravi1 > > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 12:36 AM > > To: Thomas Monjalon > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Hemant Agrawal ; > Shippen, > > Greg > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] doc: Add documents for AMD XGBE > > Ethernet > > > > >15/09/2017 14:26, Kumar, Ravi1: > > > > > >> >1. As a non-written convention, we are adding following statement > > >> >in the top of such dual licensed files : " This file is provided > > >> >under a dual > > >> >BSD/GPLv2 license. When using or redistributing this file, you may > > >> >do > > so under either license.". And license header as "BSD LICENSE" or "GPL = .." > > >> > > > >> >2. you are using a modified version of BSD. Typical license in > > >> >DPDK files > > are BSD-3 or BSD-2. If you intend to use your specific version of BSD > > license, it will require TechBoard, Gov Board and legal approval. > > >> > > > >> >3. Additionally your BSD license is including a proprietary > > >> >license text of > > Synopsys. This will also need approval before it get included in DPDK. > > >> > > > >> >4. It seems you have copy pasted the same license text in all the f= iles. > > >> >e.g. do you intend to keep dual license option + Synopsys text for > > >> >your > > documentation and the files, which you have created originally for > > dpdk only. > > >> > > > >> > > >> Hi Hemant, > > >> > > >> Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. We have to work > > >> with > > our Legal team on this. We will get back to you. > > > > > >Please keep us posted about your legal issues. > > >Maybe there is something we can help. > > > > > >If you target 18.02, I suggest to send a v2 before the end of the > > >month, in > > order to give us time to review what else must be reworked. > > > > > >Thanks > > > > Thanks for following up on this. > > > > The AMD legal team is working with Synopsys legal team on this as both > > the companies licenses are involved. Thats why it is taking longer > > than expected. > > We are working hard to meet the month end deadline and want to target > > 18.02. > > > > Regards, > > Ravi