Re: [dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

[Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 01:12:13PM -0500, Matt Laswell wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Jay Rolette <rolette@infiniteio.com>
> 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...
> >
> 
> I want to emphasize this point.  It's unsurprising that Jay and I agree,
> since we work together.  But I can say with quite a bit of confidence that
> my last employer also would stop using DPDK if it were GPL licensed.   Or,
> if they didn't jettison it entirely, they would never move beyond the last
> BSD-licensed version.  If you want to incentivize companies to support
> DPDK, the first step is to ensure they're using it.  For that reason, GPL
> seems like a step in the wrong direction to me.
> 
> - Matt
> 

So, I hear your arguments, and its understandable that you might not want a GPL
licensed product, given that the DPDK is a library (though I'm not sure what the
aversion to LGPL would be).  Regardless, I think this conversation is a bit more
about participation than license choice.  While you are correct, in that the
first step to support (by which I presume you mean participation in the
community) is use, the goal here is to get people contributing patches and
helping increase the usefulness of DPDK.

Given that DPDK is primarily licensed as BSD now, whats preventing you, or what
would encourage you to participate in the community?  I see emails from
infiniteio addresss in the archives asking questions and making suggestions on
occasion, but no patches.  What would get you (or others in a simmilar
situation) to submit those?


Neil