From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com (mail-wg0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7498C30A for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 19:39:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: by wgso17 with SMTP id o17so58161700wgs.1 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:39:47 -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:cc:content-type; bh=liW/IIm5CTza68mMAN94RDkatLHlQE4rXal0XJTsDo0=; b=CzbG727BMf4c9V4Q5K7zHBkk/MEXRQBXlt8lIYPIu8YmRlC4j3LYP1lxKrSoS6fe6u Y26XTjFFr/ebj/IEp1+17vKmcM4TTlRnTlbCFD4pxtsJwTpyKtdVMjtptgUEUcvlx44O eN0/NVCM4/LNQFWDStqhVqE4mGou0eqknIBBX9Re5FpBHbcNSQmdf70ETP6QKA/A3Nuz 58T7aN8hQppZrHaugOj2NrUamFz10QjG4eVaqUwh/PqufYR7vSrJ0Svy+6jURGgFlY97 z8rrzXIFLh4oFtpe7Rixjb+kbh5WC1SIa9AbKz1jZIhhwnVDcewI9ex48YE+00i2B/eh PeMA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQljfe0TbeYeHphby5hdeNQZ7fGCL1rdQvf2SRMc8KDz1sMwajIJxZpVEaIeFWOf9RvJFAYl MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.236.66 with SMTP id us2mr6042960wjc.54.1429897187740; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:39:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.36.193 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:39:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA54D1A917@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:39:47 -0500 Message-ID: From: Jay Rolette To: Luke Gorrie Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" 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 17:39:48 -0000 On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Luke Gorrie wrote: > 2. How will DPDK users justify contributing to DPDK upstream? > > Engineers in network equipment vendors want to contribute to open source, > but what is the incentive for the companies to support this? This would be > easy if DPDK were GPL'd (they are compelled) or if everybody were > dynamically linking with the upstream libdpdk (can't have private patches). > However, in a world where DPDK is BSD-licensed and statically linked, is it > not both cheaper and competitively advantageous to keep fixes and > optimizations in house? > The main incentive for most companies to support it is that it reduces their maintenance load. It makes it easier to not get "stuck" on a particular version of DPDK and they don't have to waste time constantly back-porting improvements and bug fixes. 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