Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] SDK: Add scripts to initialize DPDK runtime

[Jay Rolette <rolette@infinite.io>]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Bruce Richardson <
bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 07:24:02PM +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > From: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
> >
> > A tools/init directory is added with dpdk-init, a script that can be
> > used to initialize a DPDK runtime environment. 2 config files with
> > default options, dpdk.conf and interfaces, are provided as well
> > together with a SysV init script and a systemd service unit.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Luca Boccassi <lboccass@brocade.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
> > ---
> <snip>
> > new file mode 100755
> > index 0000000..89e0399
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/init/dpdk-init.in
> > @@ -0,0 +1,256 @@
> > +#!/bin/sh
> > +#
> > +# dpdk-init: startup script to initialize a dpdk runtime environment
> > +#
> > +# Copyright 2015-2016 Canonical Ltd.
> > +# Autor: Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com>
> > +# Autor: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
> > +#
> > +#    This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or
> modify
> > +#    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3,
> > +#    as published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > +#
> > +#    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> > +#    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> > +#    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> > +#    GNU General Public License for more details.
> > +#
> > +#    You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> > +#    along with this program.  If not, see <
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
> > +#
>
> Any particular reason this is licensed under GPL v3. AFAIK, all the
> userspace code in DPDK is licensed under a BSD license (with the
> exception of some dual licensed stuff which is shared between kernel and
> userspace). I just worry that adding additional licenses into the mix
> may confuse things.
>
> Regards,
> /Bruce
>

Most generally, shouldn't any patch that isn't compatible with the standard
DPDK license be rejected? With the specific exception for the KNI kernel
bits that require different licenses...

Jay