From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=134.134.136.100; helo=mga07.intel.com; envelope-from=mark.doran@intel.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) (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 2B08021BADAB2 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 15:42:35 -0800 (PST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Feb 2019 15:42:35 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,550,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="121383707" Received: from orsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.225.131]) by fmsmga008.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Feb 2019 15:42:34 -0800 Received: from orsmsx109.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.204]) by ORSMSX104.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.11]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 15:42:34 -0800 From: "Doran, Mark" To: "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" Thread-Topic: updated proposal for license changes Thread-Index: AdS6hxzm/499KcAiT+GgQ5OKgFiMgA== Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2019 23:42:33 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiNjU3MDkxY2QtNWFjZS00ZmM0LWE4OWItY2M0NzEyMzFhNTU0IiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoiZTBzTG9VZU5UOXdxVTh1Sk83KzJLMEdVREJGNUs5dUt3YWxpb3JHRTRQRkYxS2dmUlVRU2tETHd1a2tFM2ZsYiJ9 x-originating-ip: [10.22.254.139] MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: updated proposal for license changes 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: Fri, 01 Feb 2019 23:42:36 -0000 Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Everyone: I hope this note finds everyone rested and back up to speed after the holid= ays! Or maybe I should say Happy New Year to those reading in Asia :) I wanted to follow up on the note I sent way back in October. Specifically= I wanted to address the situation with Intel Contribution licensing. I im= agine some of you may be wondering why the proposed change hasn't happened = already. The reason for this really comes down to feedback that we have re= ceived from various parts of the community. First I want to take a moment to thank everyone that thought deeply about t= his issue and took the time to pass along suggestions and concerns. Our pr= imary objective from the Intel point of view is to make changes in the way = we work with this community that will be considered a net positive for all.= This kind of feedback has really helped shape our thinking for the better= along these lines. Boiling down the feedback there are two broad categories of input: 1) Choice of OSI-approved license for best effect; and 2) Diligence on ensuring all Contributors have a chance to weigh in on any = changes. Our original thought was to switch to Apache 2.0 as a means to removing the= Contribution Agreement hurdle and moving to something OSI-approved. Howev= er we have been encouraged to think about keeping the license bar absolutel= y as low as practical. When pared back to essentials the licensing require= ments for this project come down to the need for a permissive license that = works for both community and commercial interests, and protection from IP c= oncerns for consumers of Contributions and Contributors alike. With those requirements in mind, and looking at the list of available OSI-a= pproved licenses in consultation with expert legal minds in the area of ope= n source, it seems like the BSD+Patent license meets the requirements. Wha= t's more it presents an even lower level of constraints than does Apache 2.= 0. For the avoidance of doubt, the specific wording for the BSD+Patent terms I= 'm referring to is located here: https://opensource.org/licenses/BSDplusPatent Based on feedback we believe that using BSD+Patent will be more welcome and= will further reduce hurdles or concerns for new participants in the projec= t. Further, I'm advised that it would be practical, given the way the exis= ting Contribution terms read, to convert the whole EDK II project over to t= his new license form unless there are specific objections to doing that. I had originally thought to propose just that Intel content be relicensed b= ut again feedback suggests that, given the existing terms, the whole projec= t can and perhaps should change to the new terms at the same time. Mechanically the proposed means of doing this would be to add a license-his= tory.txt file. That file would live parallel in the tree to the license.tx= t file. The contents would be the current outbound and inbound license ter= ms and text pointing out that those terms were originally in place for cont= ributions up to the date of the switch. Doing this preserves notice of tho= se terms which is a requirement called out in the terms themselves but equa= lly it would allow us to rework notices in individual source files to refer= to the updated terms in a clean way. We should have some time for discussion and comment though, to see if there= 's consensus to move ahead with the change in whole or in part. Point bein= g that we believe making a good faith effort to do this right, based on the= project's collective wisdom, is more important than rushing it through. I hope that gives you a sense of where we are and tells you some of our thi= nking in light of feedback you have provided. Please do let me know if you have questions or concerns. That said, I'd de= fer to Stefano, our community manager, to arrange logistics around discussi= on of this revised proposal. -- Cheers, Mark.