On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:57:34PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 05:34:56PM -0700, Saurabh Shah wrote: > > This is the "Hyper-V Extensible Switch extension filter driver" sample code > > available at: > > http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowshardware/Hyper-V-Extensible-Virtual-e4b31fbb > > > > The sample code is licensed under Microsoft Limited Public License version > > 1.1. The license is available here - > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/cc300389.aspx (Exhibit B). > > > > Our core Hyper-V switch extension builds on top of this sample code to > > develop > > the forwarding engine. > > > > Signed-off-by: Eitan Eliahu <elia...@vmware.com> > > Signed-off-by: Guolin Yang <gy...@vmware.com> > > Signed-off-by: Linda Sun <l...@vmware.com> > > Signed-off-by: Nithin Raju <nit...@vmware.com> > > Signed-off-by: Saurabh Shah <ssaur...@vmware.com> > > The authorship on this patch is a bit murky. It appears that > everything added in the patch was written by Microsoft (did VMware > modify it?), so why is it signed off by five VMware people? One, I > could understand, since someone has to compose the patch; whoever did > that should be the author of the patch. > > Unless Eitan or Nithin wrote up the patch, it's not time to add them > to AUTHORS. > > The license, not just a URL to it, should be included in the source > tree. I think that that is always a good idea, but 3(d) in the > license says so explicitly. > > I don't think that the URL you provide for the license is correct. > When I go to the URL for the code, then click on the MS-LPL link > there, I get slightly different text (e.g. the wording of 3(f) is > different there). > > I question whether we can include this in the source tree at all. > License 3(f) only allows distributing code "that run[s] directly on a > Microsoft Windows operating system product, ..." Source code doesn't > "run directly" on anything at all, so this might forbid distributing > source. I think we'd need to get a lawyer's opinion. Have you asked > a lawyer about that? > > 3(f) definitely violates DFSG #6 (see > https://www.debian.org/social_contract), so if this code goes in then > it'll have to be removed during packaging for Debian upload. (I don't > know whether Fedora etc. have a similar policy.)
Oh, also the new files need to be distributed, otherwise the build fails with: The distribution is missing the following files: datapath-windows/base/SxApi.h datapath-windows/base/SxBase.c datapath-windows/base/SxBase.h datapath-windows/base/SxLibrary.c datapath-windows/base/SxLibrary.h datapath-windows/base/precomp.h datapath-windows/base/precompsrc.c _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
