From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:step...@networkplumber.org] Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 6:44 PM To: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com>; dev at dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] sched: patches for 2.2
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. I think you misunderstood my statement. My question is: why is Intel mentioned at all in the copyright header of rte_reciprocal.c in your initial patch submission (http://www.dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-November/029025.html)? On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com<mailto:cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com>> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org<mailto:stephen > at networkplumber.org>] > Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 8:41 PM > To: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitrescu at > intel.com<mailto:cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com>> > Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com<mailto:thomas.monjalon at > 6wind.com>>; dev at dpdk.org<mailto:dev at 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 at > intel.com<mailto:cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com>> wrote: > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at > > > networkplumber.org<mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org>] > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 4:33 PM > > > To: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitrescu at > > > intel.com<mailto:cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com>> > > > Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com<mailto:thomas.monjalon > > > at 6wind.com>>; dev at dpdk.org<mailto:dev at 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 at > > > intel.com<mailto:cristian.dumitrescu at 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
