[dpdk-dev] Licensing consistency

[Butler, Siobhan A]

>-----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.

Thanks
Siobhan