DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
	"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [20.08 PATCH] license: removing the dual prefix to avoid confusion
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 06:57:48 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AM6PR04MB4456E600BEBE17DDE092132689700@AM6PR04MB4456.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200728102134.3df94c83@hermes.lan>

Hi Bruce,
	Will you please check it with Trishan and DPDK GB board?

DPDK license indicates the correct license types in: 
http://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/tree/license/README

However in exception files we added the keyword "Dual" - which is unnecessary and not part of standard SPDX definition. 

I hope they have no objection in getting it corrected.

Regards,
Hemant

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 10:52 PM
> To: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [20.08 PATCH] license: removing the dual prefix to
> avoid confusion
> Importance: High
> 
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 11:28:40 +0530
> Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com> wrote:
> 
> > This patch removes the dual keyword from dual license definitions to
> > avoid confusion. As the *dual* word is not required to be added SPDX
> > license.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
> > ---
> >  license/exceptions.txt | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/license/exceptions.txt b/license/exceptions.txt index
> > c984764a0..3afb996ed 100644
> > --- a/license/exceptions.txt
> > +++ b/license/exceptions.txt
> > @@ -5,8 +5,8 @@ IP License policy as defined in DPDK Charter available at:
> >
> >  Note that following licenses are not exceptions:-
> >  	- BSD-3-Clause
> > -	- Dual BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0
> > -	- Dual BSD-3-Clause OR LGPL-2.1
> > +	- BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0
> > +	- BSD-3-Clause OR LGPL-2.1
> >  	- GPL-2.0  (*Only for kernel code*)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------------------------
> 
> Makes sense to me, but probably needs Board legal approval

  reply	other threads:[~2020-07-29  6:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-28  5:58 Hemant Agrawal
2020-07-28 17:21 ` Stephen Hemminger
2020-07-29  6:57   ` Hemant Agrawal [this message]
2020-09-18  7:15 ` Hemant Agrawal
2020-11-04 19:14 ` Thomas Monjalon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=AM6PR04MB4456E600BEBE17DDE092132689700@AM6PR04MB4456.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).