> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org] > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 9:15 AM > To: Zhang, Helin > Cc: Miguel Bernal Marin; dev at dpdk.org; Bernal Marin, Miguel > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Headers files with BSD license in kernel > > On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:42:59 +0000 > "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang at intel.com> wrote: > > > Hi Miguel > > > > My thought is there might be something wrong. Let's see what comments from > other experts! > > Thank you very much for the good catch! > > > > Regards, > > Helin > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Miguel Bernal Marin > > > [mailto:miguel.bernal.marin at linux.intel.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:10 AM > > > To: dev at dpdk.org > > > Cc: david.marchand at 6wind.com; Burakov, Anatoly; Zhang, Helin; Bernal > > > Marin, Miguel > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Headers files with BSD license in kernel > > > > > > Including maintainers in CC > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 12:40:57PM -0500, Miguel Bernal Marin wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I'm working on Clear Linux project, and when I was integrating > > > > DPDK kernel modules to our kernel I found there are two headers > > > > with BSD License > > > > > > > > rte_pci_dev_feature_defs.h > > > > rte_pci_dev_features.h > > > > > > > > those are included in igb_uio module. > > > > > > > > Are those licenses correct? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Miguel > > > > > > You can always escalate a BSD license to GPL, but the other way is not > allowed. > Ideally, the language on the file should make it clear that it is dual > licensed. > In an ideal world, igb_uio would go away, I am working on that.
Yes, I agree with you. To be clearer, rte_pci_dev_feature_defs.h should be in dual liceses, and rte_pci_dev_features.h should be in GPL license. Thanks, Helin
