[dpdk-dev] Licensing consistency

2014-06-06 Thread Butler, Siobhan A
>-Original Message- >From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Neil Horman >Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:57 PM >To: dev at dpdk.org >Subject: [dpdk-dev] Licensing consistency > >Hey all- > One of the things that came up during the dpdk pack

[dpdk-dev] Licensing consistency

2014-06-06 Thread Neil Horman
; >Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:57 PM > > >To: dev at dpdk.org > > >Subject: [dpdk-dev] Licensing consistency > > > > > >Hey all- > > > One of the things that came up during the dpdk package review for > > > Fedora was the inconsistency of Li

[dpdk-dev] Licensing consistency

2014-06-06 Thread John W. Linville
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 08:18:21PM +, Butler, Siobhan A wrote: > > > >-Original Message- > >From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Neil Horman > >Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:57 PM > >To: dev at dpdk.org > >Subject: [dpdk-dev]

[dpdk-dev] Licensing consistency

2014-06-05 Thread Neil Horman
Hey all- One of the things that came up during the dpdk package review for Fedora was the inconsistency of License reporting in the upstream project. DPDK is triple licensed, whcih isn't in and of itself a big deal, but indications of which file(s) are under which license is fairly scatter