2015-06-10 01:20, Zhang, Helin:
> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org]
> > > > 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?
> >
> > 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.
Yes, it is an error from this commit:
http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=88701645c98c9c88
These definitions were moved from a GPL file so they should keep the GPL header.
Then it is used in EAL:
http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=ff0b67d1c868c19
So it must be dual licensed, like for rte_pci_dev_ids.h:
http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_pci_dev_ids.h
