From: "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
To: "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"stephen@networkplumber.org" <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
"Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] Introducing SPDX License Identifiers
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 15:38:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9A962A20-EFFC-45AD-ABD7-CC888080C4A9@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171213113831.GA74296@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com>
> On Dec 13, 2017, at 5:38 AM, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:46:23AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> Hi Hemant,
>>
>> Some comments below
>>
>> 08/12/2017 08:41, Hemant Agrawal:
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Licenses/Exceptions.txt
>>
>> Please use lowercase for file and directory.
>> By the way, the text is referring to exceptions.txt.
>>
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
>>> +This file will record any exceptions in DPDK Project with respect to DPDK
>>> +IP License policy as defined in DPDK Charter available at:
>>> +
>>> +http://dpdk.org/about/charter#ip
>>
>> This link might be indented.
>>
>> I think we should make clear that
>> - BSD-3-Clause
>> - GPL-2.0
>> - dual BSD-3-Clause/GPL-2.0
>> - dual BSD-3-Clause/LGPL-2.1
>> are not exceptions.
>>
>>> +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> +License Name SPDX Identifier TB Approval Date GB Approval Date File name
>>> +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> The table is large, and file names will be long.
>> Can we remove "License Name" as it is redundant with SPDX id?
>>
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Licenses/README
>>
>> Good idea to add a README here.
>>
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
>>> +The DPDK uses the Open Source BSD-3-Clause license for the core libraries and
>>> +drivers. The kernel components are naturally GPLv2 licensed.
>>
>> You should use SPDX GPL-2.0
>>
>>> +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
>>
>> Please do not use this tense in the README.
>> We could say "DPDK uses" instead of "DPDK is adpoting the use".
>>
>>> +Unique License Identifiers in source files as defined by the Linux Foundation's
>>> +SPDX project [1].
>>
>> My preference is to insert URLs inline to make reading flow easier.
>>
>>> +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/.
>>
>> Here you are mixing inline and reference :)
>>
>>> +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
>>
>> I think (C) is useless.
>
> It may be, I can't comment legally, but it is standard practice on all
> the current copyright lines inserted by the various contributing
> companies.
The ‘(C)’ is part of the Copyright and should not be removed.
>
>> About the YEAR, we should explicit what it is.
>> I think it is only the first year, and we do not need to update
>> the last year of update.
>> We should also explicit why it is there and why it is not required
>> to add more copyrights.
>> The copyright is required to express who is allowed to declare the
>> license of the code.
>> It is a common practice to add a Copyright line when doing a big update.
>> I think it is fair, but for small changes, it is really not required
>> as we implicitly comply with the current copyright holder and license.
>>
> I'd be wary about starting to specify formats for the copyright lines,
> as such things are often specified in a particular format by those
> outside the actual development team. For now, let's just focus on the
> SPDX tags.
I agree, focus on the SPDX tags only at this point.
>
> /Bruce
Regards,
Keith
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-13 15:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-27 7:46 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] " Hemant Agrawal
2017-11-27 7:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Change root makefile license to SPDX tag Hemant Agrawal
2017-11-27 12:01 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-12-01 8:41 ` Hemant Agrawal
2017-11-28 16:59 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] Introducing SPDX License Identifiers Stephen Hemminger
2017-12-01 8:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 " Hemant Agrawal
2017-12-01 8:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] Change root makefile license to SPDX tag Hemant Agrawal
2017-12-07 23:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] Introducing SPDX License Identifiers Ferruh Yigit
2017-12-08 4:57 ` Hemant Agrawal
2017-12-08 7:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] " Hemant Agrawal
2017-12-08 7:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/4] change root makefile license to SPDX tag Hemant Agrawal
2017-12-08 7:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/4] change NXP dpaa2 code License text to SPDX tags Hemant Agrawal
2017-12-08 18:07 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-12-08 7:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/4] change NXP dpaa " Hemant Agrawal
2017-12-13 10:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] Introducing SPDX License Identifiers Thomas Monjalon
2017-12-13 11:38 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-12-13 15:38 ` Wiles, Keith [this message]
2017-12-15 10:52 ` Hemant Agrawal
2017-12-18 12:39 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 " Hemant Agrawal
2017-12-18 12:39 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/4] change root makefile license to SPDX tag Hemant Agrawal
2017-12-18 14:32 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-12-18 15:52 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-12-18 16:30 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-12-19 5:29 ` Hemant Agrawal
2017-12-19 10:01 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-12-18 12:39 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/4] change NXP dpaa2 code License text to SPDX tags Hemant Agrawal
2017-12-18 12:39 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/4] change NXP dpaa " Hemant Agrawal
2017-12-19 10:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/4] Introducing SPDX License Identifiers Hemant Agrawal
2017-12-19 10:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/4] change root makefile license to SPDX tag Hemant Agrawal
2017-12-19 10:23 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-12-19 10:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/4] change NXP dpaa2 code License text to SPDX tags Hemant Agrawal
2017-12-19 10:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/4] change NXP dpaa " Hemant Agrawal
2018-01-04 18:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/4] Introducing SPDX License Identifiers 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=9A962A20-EFFC-45AD-ABD7-CC888080C4A9@intel.com \
--to=keith.wiles@intel.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
--cc=john.mcnamara@intel.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/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).