From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 371AD37A2 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 00:46:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Dec 2017 15:46:36 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,375,1508828400"; d="scan'208";a="10038625" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.241.225.165]) ([10.241.225.165]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Dec 2017 15:46:35 -0800 To: Hemant Agrawal , dev@dpdk.org Cc: thomas@monjalon.net, stephen@networkplumber.org, bruce.richardson@intel.com References: <1511768764-14595-1-git-send-email-hemant.agrawal@nxp.com> <1512117499-23412-1-git-send-email-hemant.agrawal@nxp.com> From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: <6fa25695-a0da-0357-c769-02d3257bc44c@intel.com> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 15:46:35 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1512117499-23412-1-git-send-email-hemant.agrawal@nxp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] Introducing SPDX License Identifiers X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 23:46:37 -0000 On 12/1/2017 12:38 AM, Hemant Agrawal wrote: > The DPDK uses the Open Source BSD-3-Clause license for the core libraries > and drivers. The kernel components are naturally GPLv2 licensed. > > Many of the files in the DPDK source code contain the full text of the > applicable license. For example, most of the BSD-3-Clause files contain a > full copy of the BSD-3-Clause license text. > > Including big blocks of License headers in all files blows up the source > code with mostly redundant information. An additional problem is that even > the same licenses are referred to by a number of slightly varying text > blocks (full, abbreviated, different indentation, line wrapping and/or > white space, with obsolete address information, ...) which makes validation > and automatic processing a nightmare. > > To make this easier, DPDK is adpoting the use of a single line reference to > Unique License Identifiers in source files as defined by the Linux > Foundation's SPDX project [1]. > > Adding license information in this fashion, rather than adding full license > text, can be more efficient for developers; decreases errors; and improves > automated detection of licenses. The current set of valid, predefined SPDX > identifiers is set forth on the SPDX License List[2] > at https://spdx.org/licenses/. > > For example, to label a file as subject to the BSD-3-Clause license, > the following text would be used: > > Copyright (C) [YEAR] NAME-OF-COPYRIGHT-HOLDER > SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause > > To label a file as GPL-2.0 (e.g., for code that runs in the kernel), the > following text would be used: > > Copyright (C) [YEAR] NAME-OF-COPYRIGHT-HOLDER > SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > To label a file as dual-licensed with BSD-3-Clause and GPL-2.0 (e.g., for > code that is shared between the kernel and userspace), the following text > would be used: > > Copyright (C) [YEAR] NAME-OF-COPYRIGHT-HOLDER > SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0 > > To label a file as dual-licensed with BSD-3-Clause and LGPL-2.1 (e.g., for > code that is shared between the kernel and userspace), the following text > would be used: > > Copyright (C) [YEAR] NAME-OF-COPYRIGHT-HOLDER > SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause OR LGPL-2.1 > > Note: Any new file contributions in DPDK shall adhere to the above scheme. > It is also being recommended to replace the existing license text in the > code with SPDX-License-Identifiers. > > Note 2: DPDK currently adhere to it's IP policies[3]. Any exception to this > shall be approved by DPDK tech board and DPDK Governing Board. Steps for > any exception approval: > 1. Mention the appropriate license identifier form SPDX. If the license is > not listed in SPDX Licenses. It is the submitters responsibiliity to get > it first listed. > 2. Get the required approval from the DPDK Technical Board. Technical board > may advise the author to check alternate means first. If no other > alternatives are found and the merit of the contributions are important > for DPDK's mission, it may decide on such exception with two-thirds vote > of the members. > 3. Technical board then approach Governing board for such limited approval > for the given contribution only. > > Any approvals shall be documented in "Licenses/exceptions.txt" with record > dates. > > Note 3: Projects like U-boot have been been using SPDX License Idenfiers > successfully [2]. They have been referered in implementing SPDX based > guidelines in DPDK. > > Note 4: From the legal point of view, this patch is supposed to be only a > change to the textual representation of the license information, but in no > way any change to the actual license terms. With this patch applied, all > files will still be licensed under the same terms they were before. > > Signed-off-by: Hemant Agrawal > Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger > --- > LICENSE.GPL | 339 ------------------------ > LICENSE.LGPL | 502 ------------------------------------ > Licenses/Exceptions.txt | 12 + > Licenses/README | 82 ++++++ > Licenses/bsd-3-clause.txt | 9 + > Licenses/gpl-2.0.txt | 339 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt | 502 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hi Hemant, Are new gpl-2.0.txt & lgpl-2.1.txt files identical with old LICENSE.GPL & LICENSE.LGPL? If so, does it make sense to make commit with "git mv" so that patch won't contain all text resulting smaller patch, and it will highlight that nothing changed but moved/renamed? Thanks, ferruh <....>