[dpdk-dev] Beyond DPDK 2.0

[Jim Thompson]

> On Apr 26, 2015, at 4:56 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman at tuxdriver.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 04:08:23PM +0000, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/25/15, 8:30 AM, "Marc Sune" <marc.sune at bisdn.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 24/04/15 19:51, Matthew Hall wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:39:47PM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
>>>>> I can tell you that if DPDK were GPL-based, my company wouldn't be
>>>>> using
>>>>> it. I suspect we wouldn't be the only ones...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jay
>>>> I could second this, from the past employer where I used it. Right now
>>>> I am
>>>> using it in an open source app, I have a bit of GPL here and there but
>>>> I'm
>>>> trying to get rid of it or confine it to separate address spaces, where
>>>> it
>>>> won't impact the core code written around DPDK, as I don't want to cause
>>>> headaches for any downstream users I attract someday.
>>>> 
>>>> Hard-core GPL would not be possible for most. LGPL could be possible,
>>>> but I
>>>> don't think it could be worth the relicensing headache for that small
>>>> change.
>>>> 
>>>> Instead we should make the patch process as easy as humanly possible so
>>>> people
>>>> are encouraged to send us the fixes and not cart them around their
>>>> companies
>>>> constantly.
>> 
>> +1 and besides the GPL or LGPL ship has sailed IMHO and we can not go back.
> Actually, IANAL, but I think we can.  The BSD license allows us to fork and
> relicense the code I think, under GPL or any other license.  I'm not advocating
> for that mind you, just suggesting that its possible should it ever become
> needed.

I, on the other hand, am fairly certain that you can not “relicense BSD licensed code under the GPL (or any other license).

Were this true at law, then the opposite would also be possible.  (“Don’t like the license?  Just fork!”)