Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/3] doc: convert license headers to SPDX tags

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

24/01/2018 06:48, Hemant Agrawal:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> > 23/01/2018 16:19, Hemant Agrawal:
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> > >
> > > > 23/01/2018 14:08, Hemant Agrawal:
> > > > > This patch will be good if you only add SPDX to it and NOT remove
> > > > > the
> > > > original license text.
> > > > > i.e. only do following:
> > > > >
> > > > > > -..  BSD LICENSE
> > > > > > +..  SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> > > > >
> > > > > Around RC2 timeframe, I intend to do that. All the remaining but
> > > > > valid
> > > > license files, we will add SPDX and NOT remove the license text.
> > > >
> > > > Hemant, I don't understand why?
> > > [Hemant]
> > >
> > > Changing license for someone else copyright needs their ACK. However
> > > we can add SPDX without modifying existing license text There are large
> > number of other copyrights and not everyone is converting their license  to
> > SPDX only.
> > >
> > > In case of linux kernel and uboot, as a first step they just added SPDX to
> > all files without removing the license text.
> > >
> > > I was thinking of doing the same so that all the files in DPDK should have
> > SPDX. However, we will not SPDX to files, which are not complaint to DPDK
> > policy.
> > > We will deal with them separately.
> > 
> > If we don't remove the license now, it will never happen.
> 
> I have the same fear. But we can not remove other's license text without their explicit approval. 
> 
> W.r.t DPDK project priorities: License compliance is important than cleanup. 
> 
> Let's target following:
> 1.  100% compliance by 18.05
> 2.  100% Cleanup by 18.08 or 18.11

Why do you assume we cannot get the author's approval quickly?
We did not try.
Let's try to do compliance and cleanup at the same time.