2015-06-10 09:01, Burakov, Anatoly: > > 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 > > Agreed, should have been more careful. Should I make the patch to correct > this?
You are welcome :)
