[dpdk-dev] Headers files with BSD license in kernel

[Zhang, Helin]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 9:15 AM
> To: Zhang, Helin
> Cc: Miguel Bernal Marin; dev at dpdk.org; Bernal Marin, Miguel
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Headers files with BSD license in kernel
> 
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:42:59 +0000
> "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang at intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Miguel
> >
> > My thought is there might be something wrong. Let's see what comments from
> other experts!
> > Thank you very much for the good catch!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Helin
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Miguel Bernal Marin
> > > [mailto:miguel.bernal.marin at linux.intel.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:10 AM
> > > To: dev at dpdk.org
> > > Cc: david.marchand at 6wind.com; Burakov, Anatoly; Zhang, Helin; Bernal
> > > Marin, Miguel
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Headers files with BSD license in kernel
> > >
> > > Including maintainers in CC
> > >
> > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Miguel
> > > >
> 
> 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.

Thanks,
Helin