Re: [dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

[Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>]

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 09:29:13PM -0500, Jim Thompson wrote:
> 
> > On Apr 26, 2015, at 4:56 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 04:08:23PM +0000, Wiles, Keith wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 4/25/15, 8:30 AM, "Marc Sune" <marc.sune@bisdn.de> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 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...
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>> 
> >>>> 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.
> >>>> 
> >>>> 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.
> >> 
> >> +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 “relicense BSD licensed code under the GPL (or any other license).
> 
> Were this true at law, then the opposite would also be possible.  (“Don’t like the license?  Just fork!”)
> 
Isn't that in effect, exactly what most of the end users of the DPDK do however?

The 3 clause BSD license states that:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or
other materials provided with the distribution.

3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors
may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without
specific prior written permission.

If you build a product based on the DPDK, and statically link it, I presume
there are at least some vendors that are redistributing DPDK binary code using a
non-BSD license?  It may be a de-facto rather than a de-jure relicensing, but
the end result is the same.  The only thing that the BSD license says is that
you have to reproduce this copyright notice if you distribute BSD code.  Theres
nothing that says you can't add further copyright to derivations on that code
that you make.  IANAL, but it seems like this is done quite often.

Regardless, the canonical way to relicense code of course is have all the
copyright holder agree to relicense it under some other license.  Currently as
it stands a quick git scan indicates that 118 individuals are responsible for
the most recent change to every line of code in the dpdk (using git blame on
every file).  Of those 118 fully half belong to intel, or 6wind.  It wouldn't be
hard to hold a meeting and generate an agreement to relicense.

Of course, that won't happen.  BSD licensing is the desired solution here.
Neil