> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 22:07
> To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
> <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>; Xing,
> Beilei <beilei.x...@intel.com>; Guo, Junfeng <junfeng....@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Rushil Gupta <rush...@google.com>; Joshua
> Washington <joshw...@google.com>; Jeroen de Borst
> <jeroe...@google.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net/gve: update copyright holders
>
> 28/03/2023 11:35, Guo, Junfeng:
> > The background is that, in the past (DPDK 22.11) we didn't get the
> approval
> > of license from Google, thus chose the MIT License for the base code,
> and
> > BSD-3 License for GVE common code (without the files in /base folder).
> > We also left the copyright holder of base code just to Google Inc, and
> made
> > Intel as the copyright holder of GVE common code (without /base
> folder).
> >
> > Today we are working together for GVE dev and maintaining. And we
> got
> > the approval of BSD-3 License from Google for the base code.
> > Thus we dicided to 1) switch the License of GVE base code from MIT to
> BSD-3;
> > 2) add Google LLC as one of the copyright holders for GVE common
> code.
>
> Do you realize we had lenghty discussions in the Technical Board,
> the Governing Board, and with lawyers, just for this unneeded exception?
>
> Now looking at the patches, there seem to be some big mistakes like
> removing some copyright. I don't understand how it can be taken so
> lightly.
>
> I regret how fast we were, next time we will surely operate differently.
> If you want to improve the reputation of this driver,
> please ask other copyright holders to be more active and responsive.
>
Really sorry for causing such severe trouble.
Yes, we did take lots of efforts in the Technical Board and the Governing
Board about this MIT exception. We really appreciate that.
About this patch set, it is my severe mistake to switch the MIT License
directly for the upstream-ed code in community, in the wrong way.
In the past we upstream-ed this driver with MIT License followed from
the kernel community's gve driver base code. And now we want to
use the code with BSD-3 License (approved by Google).
So I suppose that the correct way may be 1) first remove all these code
under MIT License and 2) then add the new files under BSD-3 License.
Please correct me if there are still misunderstanding in my statement.
Thanks Thomas for pointing out my mistake. I'll be careful to fix this.
Copyright holder for the gve base code will stay unchanged. Google LLC
will be added as one of the copyright holders for the gve common code.
@Rushil Gupta Please also be more active and responsive for the code
review and contribution in the community. Thanks!
>
