From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <john.mcnamara@intel.com> Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7436737AC for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 29 May 2018 19:05:57 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 May 2018 10:05:55 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,457,1520924400"; d="scan'208";a="45686741" Received: from irsmsx106.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.31]) by orsmga006.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 May 2018 10:05:54 -0700 Received: from irsmsx103.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.136]) by IRSMSX106.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.8.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 29 May 2018 18:05:53 +0100 From: "Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com> To: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>, "Kovacevic, Marko" <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, "Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> CC: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org> Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files Thread-Index: AQHT0Apr22QuJOLOukCuqCpnsA7JUKP5WsiAgEcdsICAAFEuAIABaAEAgANleiCAALFQAIAA9KYg Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 17:05:52 +0000 Message-ID: <B27915DBBA3421428155699D51E4CFE23F351322@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20180409131113.20729-1-marko.kovacevic@intel.com> <a32d98be-ccbb-8dad-388f-f4d10f093118@intel.com> <9d6e8082-341b-3ff5-9918-82a4bc9e149d@nxp.com> <3911347.aynUWzppg9@xps> <6DC05C7C5F25994B81B3F2F214251F6638E948@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com> <AM2PR04MB07538E2D4760C8DE3F77421F89680@AM2PR04MB0753.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <B27915DBBA3421428155699D51E4CFE23F347F1F@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> <AM2PR04MB0753E8A88D1D4FCC419A9EB1896D0@AM2PR04MB0753.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> In-Reply-To: <AM2PR04MB0753E8A88D1D4FCC419A9EB1896D0@AM2PR04MB0753.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiMTVhMjNjYmItZDc1MC00NWNlLTgwM2MtMjAxODRkOWEzYTJmIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoidVpUUGxoWDRwRHppZkF2Ullla05VMGlIWjhsYVBDVVhQM3ZycnZcLzlXT1VlNFpubXZ2bFZoSzEzTUVvUjdBOUIifQ== dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.200.100 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 17:05:59 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Hemant Agrawal [mailto:hemant.agrawal@nxp.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 4:25 AM > To: Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara@intel.com>; Kovacevic, Marko > <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; Yigit= , > Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files >=20 >... >=20 > [Hemant] I got following recommendation from the Linux Foundation legal: > "For files that are e.g. release scripts and documentation, these are > typically understood to consist of contributions that are copyrighted by > their contributors. So even if there isn't a notice in the file, it would > still generally be understood to be subject to its contributors' > copyrights and to be licensed out under an open source license. >=20 > As you suggested, adding copyright and license notices can help clarify > these specifics for downstream uses. We have recommended as best practice= s > that projects add something like "Copyright The _________ Project" or > "Copyright The __________ contributors". I think your suggestion of > "Copyright The DPDK Community" is fine. And yes, I'd recommend including > the appropriate license notice and/or SPDX identifier in these files as > well. > Just to be clear, also, we _don't_ recommend removing pre-existing > copyright notices unless you are the copyright holder in question. It's > generally understood that it's fine to add general copyright notices wher= e > accurate, but only the copyright holder should remove or modify their own > notices. " >=20 > [Hemant] So, "The DPDK Project" or "The DPDK contributors" or "The DPDK > community" - anything is fine, we have to use just one of these > consistently. Hi Hemant, Thanks for the clarification. In that case I'd suggest we use "The DPDK con= tributors" since that is a recognizable entity.=20 And if there are no objections, or other recommendations, let's use that fo= r similar cases in the future. Marko, can you respin the patchset to include that. John --=20