From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jim Thompson Subject: Re: Beyond DPDK 2.0 Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 21:29:13 -0500 Message-ID: <6F92C985-29AC-48D0-A6A5-14738F04E313@netgate.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA54D1A917@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <20150424175124.GA30624@mhcomputing.net> <553B9706.1060904@bisdn.de> <20150426215644.GA9021@neilslaptop.think-freely.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" To: Neil Horman Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150426215644.GA9021-0o1r3XBGOEbbgkc5XkKeNuvMHUBZFtU3YPYVAmT7z5s@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" > On Apr 26, 2015, at 4:56 PM, Neil Horman = wrote: >=20 > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 04:08:23PM +0000, Wiles, Keith wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >> On 4/25/15, 8:30 AM, "Marc Sune" wrote: >>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On 24/04/15 19:51, Matthew Hall wrote: >>>> 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... >>>>>=20 >>>>> 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. >>>>=20 >>>> 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. >>>>=20 >>>> 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. >>=20 >> +1 and besides the GPL or LGPL ship has sailed IMHO and we can not go = back. > Actually, IANAL, but I think we can. The BSD license allows us to = fork and > relicense the code I think, under GPL or any other license. I'm not = advocating > for that mind you, just suggesting that its possible should it ever = become > needed. I, on the other hand, am fairly certain that you can not =E2=80=9Crelicens= e BSD licensed code under the GPL (or any other license). Were this true at law, then the opposite would also be possible. = (=E2=80=9CDon=E2=80=99t like the license? Just fork!=E2=80=9D)