[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Linux support for RDMA (was: [Ksummit-2005-discuss] Summary of 2005

To: jaganav@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Linux support for RDMA (was: [Ksummit-2005-discuss] Summary of 2005 Kernel Summit Proposed Topics)
From: Grant Grundler <grundler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 18:26:35 -0700
Cc: Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx>, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>, Roland Dreier <roland@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@xxxxxxxxx>, Dmitry Yusupov <dmitry_yus@xxxxxxxxx>, open-iscsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx, andrea@xxxxxxx, michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxx, James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ksummit-2005-discuss@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, bmt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1112426991.424e49ef57e2b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1112426991.424e49ef57e2b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 02:29:51AM -0500, jaganav@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> If this dual license is a concern to other kernel developers as well from
> contributing to OpenRDMA, we would seriously consider this and discuss
> with the adapter vendors.

I'm not concerned with it. If *BSD can thrive with it's license,
I don't see why it's a problem for linux.

HP is going to pay me to work on the code regardless of the license.
Projects I work on privately happen to be GPL though I'm not religous
about it.  If people choose NOT to volunteer time/effort on dual licensed
code, I understand and respect that. There are enough worthy GPL only
projects out there.

I'm speaking for myself and NOT for HP.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>