From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=192.55.52.43; helo=mga05.intel.com; envelope-from=mark.doran@intel.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D9D72115C07A for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 14:23:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Oct 2018 14:23:46 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,333,1534834800"; d="scan'208,217";a="237968705" Received: from orsmsx102.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.225.129]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 02 Oct 2018 14:23:39 -0700 Received: from orsmsx160.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.226.43) by ORSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.225.129) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 14:23:39 -0700 Received: from orsmsx109.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.251]) by ORSMSX160.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.13.121]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 14:23:38 -0700 From: "Doran, Mark" To: "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" Thread-Topic: Changes to Intel contribution model Thread-Index: AdRalcevu1bn9YBkSGKT2AZd4/U+vg== Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 21:23:38 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.22.254.139] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Changes to Intel contribution model X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 21:23:47 -0000 Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Everyone: The way Intel's BIOS development community is organized has changed recentl= y. This change presents opportunities to rethink some of the ways that we = interact with the open source community around BIOS and this project in par= ticular. In general, I believe Intel is interested in moving towards a mor= e mainstream open source project model of interaction with this community. As a first step in that process, I'd like to let you know that Intel will s= hortly change the licensing for all our EDK II project contributions. The = existing license, composed of Contributor Agreement and BSD terms, will rem= ain. However we will be adding Apache 2.0 terms as a dual license option f= or all contributions that we have made wherever practical to do so. In practice, these two license formulations are effectively equivalent for = both contributors and consumers of code from the project. The value in mak= ing this change is that it means the affected code will be licensed with an= OSI approved set of license terms. This should among other things make it= easier for participants to get approval to work and contribute in the proj= ect and will allow us to get rid of the hurdle of a formal agreement to the= Contributor terms as a precursor to doing any work. Longer term, I'd like to invite all contributors to consider doing somethin= g similar with their contributions. And beyond that, perhaps taking the le= ad of other projects like OpenSSL that have done this, converge on Apache 2= .0 as the single, preferred license for the code in the project. That of c= ourse is a decision for the community rather than any one participant. With the latter thought in mind, I'd also like to invite discussion of what= changes might be made to the project to make it function and present as a = more recognizable mainstream open source project. I think the changes at I= ntel create an opportunity for us to take on board community feedback, much= of which we have heard but heretofore not necessarily been able to enact. = In other words we are at a point where Intel is willing to make substantiv= e changes to its working model with the project but we would like to engage= the community to decide together what a better, stronger upstream project = could look like going forward. I've talked to some of you about these ideas and the proposal right now wou= ld be to set up some open phone meeting conversations about what aspiration= s we might collectively agree for the project. I think we will need more t= han one to accommodate schedules and time zones since we have a pretty well= spread out group of participants. Watch for logistics proposals on when t= hose conversations can take place. Ideally I'd like to try and get those r= olling within the next week or two at most. I'd ask everyone to think abou= t things you'd like to see done differently in the EDK II project, be it tr= ee changes, tools and process changes, actual code changes or anything else= and be ready to bring those forward for discussion. I did talk to the ste= wards already and I know they have a few ideas along these lines already so= there's already some seeds for the discussion there. Since this is not exactly a normal thread of discussion for this mailing li= st, I'd suggest that we not initially engage in extensive discussion on thi= s via the email reflector - rather let's find those times to talk about ide= as in real time by phone meeting as I think that will be more efficient to = share brainstorming ideas. And I don't want to disrupt the work flow here i= n the meanwhile! (well, not any more than I just did perhaps ;)) If you have questions about the above that can't wait for the broader inclu= sive discussions, you are welcome to reply to me direct of course. I'm rea= lly looking forward to conversations about how to make a better upstream th= at will benefit our entire ecosystem! -- Cheers, Mark.