Re: [dpdk-dev] tools brainstorming

[Matthew Hall <mhall@mhcomputing.net>]

On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:16:03AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> I prefer the file just say that it is BSD or GPL and refer to license files 
> in the package. That way if something has to change it doesn't need a 
> massive license sweep

Hi guys,

I hope we're also enforcing some requirement that all user-space files that 
are expected to be used inside of the address space apps must be BSD, MIT, or 
other license which allows binary redistribution, as part of these standards. 
Or we could end up causing a lot of pain for the app developers if somebody 
puts a bunch of GPL files into the user-space code which blocks their usage.

For the Linux kernel side files, we probably need to say BSD, MIT, or GPLv2 
specifically, and not GPLv3, I think that's what Linus is using, or it could 
be a problem to upstream any of those as DPDK usage grows.

For the BSD kernel side files, if any, probably need to be sure we're 
compatible with at least FreeBSD and NetBSD, and probably also OpenBSD.

Matthew.