From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jay Rolette Subject: Re: Beyond DPDK 2.0 Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:39:47 -0500 Message-ID: References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA54D1A917@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" To: Luke Gorrie Return-path: In-Reply-To: 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 Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Luke Gorrie wrote: > 2. How will DPDK users justify contributing to DPDK upstream? > > Engineers in network equipment vendors want to contribute to open source, > but what is the incentive for the companies to support this? This would be > easy if DPDK were GPL'd (they are compelled) or if everybody were > dynamically linking with the upstream libdpdk (can't have private patches). > However, in a world where DPDK is BSD-licensed and statically linked, is it > not both cheaper and competitively advantageous to keep fixes and > optimizations in house? > The main incentive for most companies to support it is that it reduces their maintenance load. It makes it easier to not get "stuck" on a particular version of DPDK and they don't have to waste time constantly back-porting improvements and bug fixes. 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