[dpdk-dev] DPDK techboard minutes of September 15]

Hemant Agrawal hemant.agrawal at nxp.com
Wed Oct 4 12:04:02 CEST 2017

Hi Pavan,

On 10/4/2017 2:45 PM, Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 09:36:48PM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> As per the last techboard meeting's conclusion,
> <snip>
>> 3) Request for feedback regarding the new license requirement for the optimized version of 64bit division code from libdivide.
>> It was pointed out that current 32-bit version is not BSD-licensed either:
>> http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/lib/librte_sched/rte_reciprocal.h
>> TB recommendations:
>> a) request LF legals to audit current lib/librte_sched/rte_reciprocal.h
>> b) ask author of the patch for 64-bit version to:
>>     - try to find BSD licensed implementation of the same algorithm
>>     - contact the authors of the original code and ask their permission for re-licensing in BSD
> I have contacted the author and got the following response
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "libdivide is made available under the zlib license, which is very permissive
> and compatible with BSD licenses. libdivide may be freely used in BSD-licensed
> software, or also GPL or commercial software.
> You do not have to add any copyright notices if you use libdivide in your
> binaries. If you simply add libdivide.h to your sources and use it, you are
> complying with the license.
> It is my hope with libdivide that anyone can use it for anything.
> The license is only so that nobody else claims to be the original author."
> "It’s fine to modify libdivide to remove pieces you don’t use, or just copy
> and paste the parts you do use. However it’s not reasonable to ask me to
> contribute libdivide "without the licensing part;” in fact I cannot do so
> because libdivide has more than one contributor.
> The good news is that using libdivide under its license is very easy!
> You only have to include the 14 line license text (under "ZLib license”).
> The simplest way is with a source code comment in the file itself - I see you
> have several other acknowledgements in rte_reciprocal.h, so that seems like a
> natural place. A separate acknowledgements file is also fine if you prefer.
> I hope that explains things and thanks for understanding,
> _fish"
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The authors concern is contributing it to BSD licence will be a weak link
> to the original author credits.

You will need explicit permission to use the code as BSD licensed, 
before it can be merged to DPDK.

It is less likely that Gov Board will allow any other license inclusion 
to DPDK main project at this moment. This will impact DPDK charter #6, 
which will mean long legal review cycles of charter.

In case of "lib/librte_sched/rte_reciprocal.h", Stephen has confirmed 
that the implementer gave permission to incorporate this into DPDK as 
BSD licensed.


 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org]
 > Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 3:00 AM
 > To: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal at nxp.com>
 > Cc: techboard at dpdk.org
 > Subject: Re: [dpdk-techboard] DPDK - legal check on code base
 > On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 06:07:42 +0000
 > Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal at nxp.com> wrote:
 > >   1.  Implementer License - NOT BSD
 > > ./lib/librte_sched/rte_reciprocal.h
 > >                AI - need to ask LF - legal.
 > The implementer gave permission to incorporate this into DPDK as BSD
 > licensed.
 > My assumption is that not every file needs to have the BSD licensed
 > boilerplate since the overall project is BSD licensed.

> <snip>
>> Thanks,
>> Konstantin
> Thanks,
> Pavan

More information about the dev mailing list