[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] crypto: normalize cryptodev pmd names with macros

[Neil Horman]

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 07:03:10PM +0000, Mcnamara, John wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Neil Horman
> > Sent: Friday, July 8, 2016 2:42 PM
> > To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com>
> > Cc: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org;
> > Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Stephen Hemminger
> > <stephen at networkplumber.org>; Panu Matilainen <pmatilai at redhat.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] crypto: normalize cryptodev pmd names with
> > macros
> > 
> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 02:40:01PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 2016-07-08 08:17, Neil Horman:
> > > > I suppose thats fine, sure, though I'm really not comfortable with
> > > > an open source project requiring what appears to be non-open source
> > > > components (though I can't really tell what the snow3g or kasumi
> > license is).
> > >
> > > Yes you're right.
> > > IMHO, it is acceptable because it is free (just need a registration)
> > > but it can be discussed.
> > > I think there are some legal export issues because of crypto aim.
> > Yeah, crypto usually has munitions export restrictions.  I'm fine with
> > that, as long as the license to the code is GPL.  And I can't tell what
> > the license is because you have to register to get it before you can see
> > it.
> > 
> > If you, or someone can confirm that the snow3g and kasumi ssl libraries
> > are open source compatible (or better still if the license can be
> > announced prior to registration on the web site), then I'm fine with it,
> > and am happy to test with it, I just don't want to register without
> > knowing that beforehand.
> 
> Hi Neil,
> 
> The license is "Intel Pre-Release Software License Agreement". We will send a
> patch to make this this clear in the documentation. We will also see if it
> can be made visible on the download page. 
> 
> I can send you a copy of the license if you wish. Pablo has already tested 
> compilation with the latest version of the patch.
> 
I understand and appreciate that, but I'd still like to have a copy of the
license.  It seems a bit unreasonable to me to include open source drivers in an
open source project, if they can't be built without a non-open source library
included.

Neil

> John
> 
>