Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] sched: patches for 2.2

[Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>]

Why does this need to be reassigned to Intel. That is not how the DPDK
works.
Please leave the original copyright holders on the file.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Dumitrescu, Cristian <
cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 8:41 PM
> > To: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>
> > Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] sched: patches for 2.2
> >
> > On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 19:53:01 +0000
> > "Dumitrescu, Cristian" <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 4:33 PM
> > > > To: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] sched: patches for 2.2
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 07:49:20 +0000
> > > > "Dumitrescu, Cristian" <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Regarding Stephen's patches, I think there is a pending issue
> regarding
> > the
> > > > legal side of the Copyright, which is attributed to Intel, although
> > Stephen's
> > > > code is relicensed with BSD license by permission from the original
> code
> > > > author (which also submitted the code to Linux kernel under GPL).
> This
> > was
> > > > already flagged. This is a legal issue and I do not feel comfortable
> with
> > ack-ing
> > > > this patch until the legal resolution on this is crystal clear.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I got explicit permission from the author who holds the copyright to
> > relicense
> > > > it.
> > >
> > > Did you get explicit permission from the author who holds the
> copyright to
> > relicense it with BSD license that hands over the copyright to Intel?
> >
> > I got explicit permission to relicense as BSD.
> >
> >
> > I believe DPDK does not require copyright assignment, and this is a
> > standalone file.
> >
>
> Yes, I understand that you got permission from the author to relicense as
> BSD. What I am not sure of is whether it is OK to assign the copyright to
> Intel, maybe other people can comment on this as well.
>
> As explained above, rte_reciprocal.[hc] is a standalone algorithm that is
> independent of librte_sched code. It can useful to any piece of code
> requiring division on data plane side, including any DPDK library or app,
> even those not using librte_sched library, therefor it really does not
> belong to librte_sched. My proposal is:
> 1. Please submit patch series 1 with rte_reciprocal.[hc] as new files to
> be added to librte_eal/common.
> 2. Please submit patch series 2 containing just changes to librte_sched,
> which are small.
>
> Are you OK with this approach?
>
> Thanks,
> Cristian
>
>
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 20, 2014, at 01:24, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > The kernel implementation of reciprocal divide is GPL licensed.
> > > Is there any chance of getting a BSD license version to allow using
> > > it in the DPDK?
> >
> > I absolutely don't have a problem to give my ack to make this
> > dual-license. Where do I need to sign? ;)
> >
> > Bye,
> > Hannes
> >
> > >> On Sat, Dec 20, 2014, at 01:24, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > >>> The kernel implementation of reciprocal divide is GPL licensed.
> > >>> Is there any chance of getting a BSD license version to allow using
> > >>> it in the DPDK?
> > >>
> > >> I absolutely don't have a problem to give my ack to make this
> > >> dual-license. Where do I need to sign? ;)
> >
> > I have absolutely no problem with that. Feel free to add my
> > Signed-off-by to your DPDK submission.
> >
> > Merry X-Mas & thanks for asking!
> >
> > Daniel
>