[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160916163201.GC13911@obsidianresearch.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:32:01 -0600
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To: "Woodruff, Robert J" <robert.j.woodruff@...el.com>
Cc: Adit Ranadive <aditr@...are.com>,
"dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
pv-drivers <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"Jorgen S. Hansen" <jhansen@...are.com>,
Aditya Sarwade <asarwade@...are.com>,
George Zhang <georgezhang@...are.com>,
Bryan Tan <bryantan@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/16] Add Paravirtual RDMA Driver
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 04:59:10PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > package follows that licensing model for accepting any new code into
> > that combined repo ?
>
> As with the kernel we'd discourage 're-licensing' existing files.
>
> However, since this is not a OFA project, I, personally, would not
> turn away a GPLv2 compatible contribution, but I am proposing that the
> 'default' license for the project be OFA compatible.
I should be clearer here. I am *strongly* opposed to anything that
changes the license of the existing 4 core libraries away from the
GPLv2 or OpenIB.org situation we have today. (that includes to other
varients of the BSD license)
I just checked and we appear to be completely OK on this point today.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists