[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] sched: patches for 2.2

[Dumitrescu, Cristian]

From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at 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