[2/2] net/gve: update copyright holders

  Add Google LLC as one of the copyright holders for GVE.

Signed-off-by: Rushil Gupta <rushilg@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Joshua Washington <joshwash@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junfeng Guo <junfeng.guo@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeroen de Borst <jeroendb@google.com>
---
 drivers/net/gve/gve_ethdev.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 drivers/net/gve/gve_ethdev.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 drivers/net/gve/gve_logs.h   | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 drivers/net/gve/gve_rx.c     | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 drivers/net/gve/gve_tx.c     | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 drivers/net/gve/meson.build  | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 6 files changed, 180 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
  

On 3/28/2023 3:08 AM, Junfeng Guo wrote:
> Add Google LLC as one of the copyright holders for GVE.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rushil Gupta <rushilg@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Joshua Washington <joshwash@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Junfeng Guo <junfeng.guo@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jeroen de Borst <jeroendb@google.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/gve/gve_ethdev.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  drivers/net/gve/gve_ethdev.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  drivers/net/gve/gve_logs.h   | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  drivers/net/gve/gve_rx.c     | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  drivers/net/gve/gve_tx.c     | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  drivers/net/gve/meson.build  | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  6 files changed, 180 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/gve/gve_ethdev.c b/drivers/net/gve/gve_ethdev.c
> index cf28a4a3b7..1b8f0fde8f 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/gve/gve_ethdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/gve/gve_ethdev.c
> @@ -1,5 +1,33 @@
> -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> - * Copyright(C) 2022 Intel Corporation
> +/*
> + * SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> + *
> + * Copyright (c) 2022-2023 Google LLC
> + * Copyright (c) 2022-2023 Intel Corporation
> + *
> + * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification,
> + * are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
> + *
> + * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
> + *    list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> + *
> + * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
> + *    this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
> + *    and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> + *
> + * 3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors
> + *    may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without
> + *    specific prior written permission.
> + *
> + * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND
> + * ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
> + * WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
> + * DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
> + * ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
> + * (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
> + * LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON
> + * ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
> + * (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
> + * SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>   */

Can you please separate the patches that updates license and copyright?
  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 16:57
> To: Guo, Junfeng <junfeng.guo@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
> <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Xing,
> Beilei <beilei.xing@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Rushil Gupta <rushilg@google.com>; Joshua
> Washington <joshwash@google.com>; Jeroen de Borst
> <jeroendb@google.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net/gve: update copyright holders
> 
> On 3/28/2023 3:08 AM, Junfeng Guo wrote:
> > Add Google LLC as one of the copyright holders for GVE.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rushil Gupta <rushilg@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Joshua Washington <joshwash@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Junfeng Guo <junfeng.guo@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jeroen de Borst <jeroendb@google.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/gve/gve_ethdev.c | 32
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  drivers/net/gve/gve_ethdev.h | 32
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  drivers/net/gve/gve_logs.h   | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> -
> >  drivers/net/gve/gve_rx.c     | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  drivers/net/gve/gve_tx.c     | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  drivers/net/gve/meson.build  | 31
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  6 files changed, 180 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/gve/gve_ethdev.c
> b/drivers/net/gve/gve_ethdev.c
> > index cf28a4a3b7..1b8f0fde8f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/gve/gve_ethdev.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/gve/gve_ethdev.c
> > @@ -1,5 +1,33 @@
> > -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> > - * Copyright(C) 2022 Intel Corporation
> > +/*
> > + * SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (c) 2022-2023 Google LLC
> > + * Copyright (c) 2022-2023 Intel Corporation
> > + *
> > + * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification,
> > + * are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
> > + *
> > + * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> notice, this
> > + *    list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> > + *
> > + * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
> copyright notice,
> > + *    this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> documentation
> > + *    and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> > + *
> > + * 3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its
> contributors
> > + *    may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this
> software without
> > + *    specific prior written permission.
> > + *
> > + * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND
> CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND
> > + * ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
> LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
> > + * WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
> PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
> > + * DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR
> CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
> > + * ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
> CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
> > + * (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
> SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
> > + * LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
> HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON
> > + * ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
> LIABILITY, OR TORT
> > + * (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
> OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
> > + * SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGE.
> >   */
> 
> Can you please separate the patches that updates license and copyright?

Sure.

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.

Thanks!
  

On 3/28/2023 10:35 AM, Guo, Junfeng wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 16:57
>> To: Guo, Junfeng <junfeng.guo@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
>> <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Xing,
>> Beilei <beilei.xing@intel.com>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Rushil Gupta <rushilg@google.com>; Joshua
>> Washington <joshwash@google.com>; Jeroen de Borst
>> <jeroendb@google.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net/gve: update copyright holders
>>
>> On 3/28/2023 3:08 AM, Junfeng Guo wrote:
>>> Add Google LLC as one of the copyright holders for GVE.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rushil Gupta <rushilg@google.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Joshua Washington <joshwash@google.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Junfeng Guo <junfeng.guo@intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jeroen de Borst <jeroendb@google.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/net/gve/gve_ethdev.c | 32
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>  drivers/net/gve/gve_ethdev.h | 32
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>  drivers/net/gve/gve_logs.h   | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> -
>>>  drivers/net/gve/gve_rx.c     | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>  drivers/net/gve/gve_tx.c     | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>  drivers/net/gve/meson.build  | 31
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>  6 files changed, 180 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/gve/gve_ethdev.c
>> b/drivers/net/gve/gve_ethdev.c
>>> index cf28a4a3b7..1b8f0fde8f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/gve/gve_ethdev.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/gve/gve_ethdev.c
>>> @@ -1,5 +1,33 @@
>>> -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
>>> - * Copyright(C) 2022 Intel Corporation
>>> +/*
>>> + * SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
>>> + *
>>> + * Copyright (c) 2022-2023 Google LLC
>>> + * Copyright (c) 2022-2023 Intel Corporation
>>> + *
>>> + * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>> modification,
>>> + * are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
>>> + *
>>> + * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>> notice, this
>>> + *    list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>>> + *
>>> + * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
>> copyright notice,
>>> + *    this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>> documentation
>>> + *    and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>>> + *
>>> + * 3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its
>> contributors
>>> + *    may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this
>> software without
>>> + *    specific prior written permission.
>>> + *
>>> + * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND
>> CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND
>>> + * ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
>> LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
>>> + * WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
>> PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
>>> + * DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR
>> CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
>>> + * ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
>> CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
>>> + * (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
>> SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
>>> + * LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
>> HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON
>>> + * ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
>> LIABILITY, OR TORT
>>> + * (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
>> OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
>>> + * SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
>> DAMAGE.
>>>   */
>>
>> Can you please separate the patches that updates license and copyright?
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 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.
> 

+1 to switch the DPDK common BSD-3 license, instead of having an
exception for the driver, it simplifies things.

Thank you for following this up.
  

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.
  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 22:07
> To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
> <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Xing,
> Beilei <beilei.xing@intel.com>; Guo, Junfeng <junfeng.guo@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Rushil Gupta <rushilg@google.com>; Joshua
> Washington <joshwash@google.com>; Jeroen de Borst
> <jeroendb@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!

>
  

30/03/2023 09:20, Guo, Junfeng:
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > 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!
  

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,
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.

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 6:14 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:

> 30/03/2023 09:20, Guo, Junfeng:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > 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!
>
>
>
>
  

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 6:14 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:

> 30/03/2023 09:20, Guo, Junfeng:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > 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!
>
>
>
> 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,
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.
  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 21:14
> To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
> <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Xing,
> Beilei <beilei.xing@intel.com>; Rushil Gupta <rushilg@google.com>; Guo,
> Junfeng <junfeng.guo@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Joshua Washington <joshwash@google.com>; Jeroen
> de Borst <jeroendb@google.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net/gve: update copyright holders
> 
> 30/03/2023 09:20, Guo, Junfeng:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > 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.

For this patch set, the code lines remain unchanged.
We want to use BSD licensed source files to replace the MIT licensed ones.
This patch set is mainly used to for the license related purpose.

You can check the latest v4 patch set:
https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=27570&state=*

Sorry about the misleading titles and statements in this patch set, that
cause the misunderstanding of changing license/copyright unconsidered.

As Rushil replied, Google is about to upstream driver code to FreeBSD 
under BSD license as well so we will see this code under BSD license soon. 
And he will consult the lawyers on his end as well.

Thanks

> 
> > 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!
> 
>