On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 08:18:21PM +0000, Butler, Siobhan A wrote: > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Neil Horman > >Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:57 PM > >To: dev at dpdk.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 at tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.
