From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com (mail-ig0-f169.google.com [209.85.213.169]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31B63C30A for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 20:12:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: by igblo3 with SMTP id lo3so21218120igb.1 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:12:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=JN+6otpQn51xsZXQ5AnJpe+BvWhXRcqbk4dGt/EMMvw=; b=hY+HfAGmRbWJobThvvu/g4FW+RYkyUkGnWk+vverIcNfm1+6PJskJOG7ib/yQ6tYrE 7QvBmFcNvtBP8FylwXfrrPKef0iE3uQSRiqkBGE+dVRCWilY0llGOFTfp1nDR5PAaRZx NNFFxRyrVyimd5lwjoj4J5yjGpDAi71GrSiLzeVemrwvGOesTLGFpMh32379sP0g5Cg1 JNFxLUoTYHq1xlUyrz1XXgT494ebGP3r60pmmCORz37vxtZwFAWW80njfVUB3A8tFnI7 OCAcveAT+yC91CbLMlDaokx+C6OSktq8VboMQZxviKhTozsd06Ph/wy0SNXmSmgGEdYq ot+Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkkZPsrRyGG5965W8cO5TtHRlcUEfPnHmqu+1ML3iyzgFuXIeVgWWLqoIqwN+ugEnWh56uS MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.12.10 with SMTP id u10mr400204igb.8.1429899133176; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:12:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.159.68 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:12:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA54D1A917@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 13:12:13 -0500 Message-ID: From: Matt Laswell To: "dev@dpdk.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 18:12:14 -0000 On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:39 PM, 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... > 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