[dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, November 29th

[Wiles, Keith]

> On Dec 1, 2016, at 2:20 PM, O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll at intel.com> wrote:
> 
>> From: Michael Dolan [mailto:mdolan at linuxfoundation.org] 
>> Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 7:45 PM
>> To: Francois Ozog <francois.ozog at linaro.org>
>> Cc: Dave Neary <dneary at redhat.com>; O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll at intel.com>; moving at dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, November 29th
>> 
>> Can we setup a call next week with the counsel for the major contributors? If it's 7-9 companies this shouldn't be difficult to resolve. I hate to be difficult but this topic will not be resolved on a public mailing list unless everyone is willing to punt on the issue until there is a governing board to make the decision.
>> 
>> I am willing to schedule and host the call. I just need the names and emails of your counsel. Please email me directly and not on the list.
> 
> We could do that, but I suspect that if we do we're heading into months of legal debate. The intent of the initiative to move the project to LF was to do so with minimal changes. The adoption of a CLA and/or a licensing change clearly doesn't fall into that category.
> 
> You have a valid point that this is a significant issue and we shouldn't rush into a decision on it, or make one without fully considering the legal implications. So, my preference would be to use the charter to document the current process (BSD license and DCO). Then, when we have a governing board in place, anybody that wants to can propose a change and it can be dealt with by the board.
> 
> What do others think?

Well I agree with you (if that means anything) on handling this issue later, it just makes sense for moving quickly.

Regards,
Keith