On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 09:00:48AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 21/05/2025 02:35, Andre Muezerie:
> > On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 10:14:33AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > On Mon, 5 May 2025 13:40:07 -0700
> > > Andre Muezerie <andre...@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Existing DPDK code uses getline(), which is a POSIX function and is
> > > > not available in the Windows APIs.
> > > >
> > > > Instead of rewriting it or coming up with some other replacement, this
> > > > patch makes use of the implementation provided by NetBSD to make it
> > > > possible to compile code dependent on getline on Windows.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andre Muezerie <andre...@linux.microsoft.com>
> > >
> > > Not sure, are BSD-2 and BSD-3 compatible?
> > > Getting license exception approved requires going through the governing
> > > board
> > > which can take up to 6 months.
> >
> > Hi Stephen, I would appreciate some guidance here.
> >
> > My understanding is that in general, BSD-2 licensed code can be used in
> > BSD-3
> > licensed projects, as long as the BSD-2 license is retained in the original
> > (BSD-2) files.
> >
> > I do see that BSD-2 was listed in the exception table (for getopt
> > function). It's
> > not clear to me why it needed to be listed as an exception, but if that was
> > needed, it indicates that the same should be done for getline(). Is that not
> > the case?
>
> No matter the compatibility agreed or not in courts,
> if the licence is different we note it as an exception,
> so it is crystal clear for users of DPDK.
> We don't want to have any surprise and we avoid exceptions,
> that's why the Governing Board has to accept it.
>
Thanks for clarifying, Thomas.
I sent an email to the Governing Board requesting the exception.
