Re: Beyond DPDK 2.0

[Matthew Hall <mhall-Hv3ogNYU3JfZZajBQzqCxQ@public.gmane.org>]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:39:47PM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
> I can tell you that if DPDK were GPL-based, my company wouldn't be using
> it. I suspect we wouldn't be the only ones...
> 
> Jay

I could second this, from the past employer where I used it. Right now I am 
using it in an open source app, I have a bit of GPL here and there but I'm 
trying to get rid of it or confine it to separate address spaces, where it 
won't impact the core code written around DPDK, as I don't want to cause 
headaches for any downstream users I attract someday.

Hard-core GPL would not be possible for most. LGPL could be possible, but I 
don't think it could be worth the relicensing headache for that small change.

Instead we should make the patch process as easy as humanly possible so people 
are encouraged to send us the fixes and not cart them around their companies 
constantly.

Perhaps it means having some ReviewBoard type of tools, a clone in Github or 
Bitbucket where the less hardcore kernel-workflow types could send back their 
small bug fixes a bit more easily, this kind of stuff. Google has been getting 
good uptake since they moved most of their open source across to Github, 
because the contribution workflow was more convenient than Google Code was.

Matthew.