Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] doc: define qualification criteria for external library

[Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 17:25:55 +0100
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:

> > 
> > Distribution and unconditional use is not the case for existing
> > library dependencies such as
> > https://gitlab.com/nvidia/headers/cuda-individual/cudart/-/blob/main/LICENSE?ref_type=heads
> > 
> > So I am not sure, Which is the correct thing to do. Maybe we can
> > discuss more in tech board meeting if there are no other comments in
> > mailing list on this topic.  
> 
> I don't think we should make mandatory to have rights of redistribution.
> To me, being to download and install the dependency without any restriction
> is enough *for a driver*.
> If distribution of the dependency is restricted,
> then the driver will be disabled by the distro.
> It is not our problem I think.
> 
> And I agree we must have stricter requirements for libraries dependencies.
> I am OK to mandate free distribution for such library dependencies.

For me, the policy should meet these goals:

1. A developer should be able to test any driver and library for free.
Ok, with any dependencies as long as they are freely available, and do not require
giving up all rights in the process (click through agreements).

2. A distro maintainer should be able to build DPDK with the component if
any dependent packages are available for that distribution.

3. DPDK must not become a sham front end for proprietary binary blobs.
That is what Open Dataplane was, just a wrapper API around proprietary binary
blob backends.