<div dir="ltr">We were just trying to comply with the BSD license to get rid of the exception. You have the MIT license for control path/admin-queue code. Since admin-queue path is similar across linux, freebsd and dpdk the code is similar but not exactly the same,<div>We are about to upstream driver code to FreeBSD under BSD license as well so you will see this code under BSD license soon. I will consult the lawyers on my end as well.</div></div> <div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 6:14 AM Thomas Monjalon <<a href="mailto:thomas@monjalon.net">thomas@monjalon.net</a>> wrote: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">30/03/2023 09:20, Guo, Junfeng: > From: Thomas Monjalon <<a href="mailto:thomas@monjalon.net" target="_blank">thomas@monjalon.net</a>> > > 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. The code under BSD is different of the MIT code? If it is the same with a new approved license, you can just change the 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! </blockquote></div>