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

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 19:53:01 +0000
"Dumitrescu, Cristian" <cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 4:33 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
> > 
> > On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 07:49:20 +0000
> > "Dumitrescu, Cristian" <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.


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