The licensing worms prevent IMHO only selling the source code, although, porting may be useful On Sep 9, 2014 5:54 PM, "Stephen Hemminger" <stephen at networkplumber.org> wrote:
> Porting Linux stack to DPDK opens up a licensing can of worms. > Linux code is GPLv2, and DPDK code is BSD. Any combination of the two > would end up > being covered by the Linux GPLv2 license. > > On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Vadim Suraev <vadim.suraev at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I've ported the Linux kernel TCP/IP stack to user space and integrated >> with >> DPDK, the source and documentation and the roadmap will be published (and >> announced) within few days. >> Regards, >> Vadim >> On Sep 9, 2014 9:20 AM, "Matthew Hall" <mhall at mhcomputing.net> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 08:49:44AM +0800, zimeiw wrote: >> > > I have porting major FreeBSD tcp/ip stack to dpdk. new tcp/ip stack is >> > based >> > > on dpdk rte_mbuf, rte_ring, rte_memory and rte_table. it is faster to >> > > forwarding packets. >> > >> > Hello, >> > >> > This is awesome work to be doing and badly needed to use DPDK for any L4 >> > purposes where it is very limited. I'll be following your progress. >> > >> > You didn't mention your name, and compare your work with >> > https://github.com/rumpkernel/dpdk-rumptcpip/ , and talk about >> behavior / >> > performance, and how long you think it'll take. I'm curious if you can >> give >> > some more comments. >> > >> > I'm implementing an RX-side very basic stack myself... but I'm not using >> > BSD >> > standard APIs or doing TX-side like yours will have. >> > >> > Matthew. >> > >> > >
