Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 00/15] Introduce IDPF driver

From: Jason Gunthorpe <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2023 13:42:13 -0300

On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 04:36:56PM -0500, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:

> > Further OASIS has a legal IPR policy that basically means Intel needs
> > to publicly justify that their Signed-off-by is consisent with the
> > kernel rules of the DCO. ie that they have a legal right to submit
> > this IP to the kernel.
> 
> OASIS does NOT have such a legal IPR policy. The only IPR policy that
> applies to the IDPF TC members is the “Non-assert” IPR policy as stated
> in the Charter.

Non-assert is relevant to inclusion in Linux and is part of what the
DCO considers. According to the OASIS IPR non-assert doesn't
automatically trigger just because information has been shared within
a TC.

As the submitter you need to explain that all IP and license issues
are accounted for because *in general* taking work-in-progress out of
a industry workgroup with an IPR is a problematic thing to include in
Linux.

eg you can say that the 0.9 document this series linked to has
properly reached "OASIS Standards Draft Deliverable" and is thus
covered by the IPR, or you can explain that all Intel has confirmed
outside OASIS that all parties that contribued to the document clear
the IP release, or perhaps even that Intel is the only IP owner.

This abnormal thing just needs to be explained, maintainer's can't be
left to guess if IP issues are correct.

Jason