Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net: update licence for network headers

[Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>]

On 12/13/2017 10:43 AM, Hemant Agrawal wrote:
> On 12/12/2017 10:27 PM, Olivier MATZ wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 09:56:40AM -0800, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2017 9:27 PM, Hemant Agrawal wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>     Most templates are showing copyright first and SPDX later i.e. the
>>>> typical way for writing the license.
>>>>
>>>> However some projects has followed it other way around to make it easy
>>>> for tools i.e. the TOP line.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Ferruh that we shall follow single convention.  I will
>>>> prefer to do it in following way to make it consistent. (I will also
>>>> fix
>>>> my change patches).
>>>>
>>>>  >> Copyright (C) [YEAR] NAME-OF-COPYRIGHT-HOLDER
>>>>  >> Copyright (C) [YEAR] NAME-OF-COPYRIGHT-HOLDER-2
>>>>  >> Copyright (C) [YEAR] NAME-OF-COPYRIGHT-HOLDER-3
>>>>  >> SPDX-License-Identifier:        BSD-3-Clause
>>>
>>> Stephen mentioned Linux already has a defined syntax for this, unless
>>> there is a
>>> good reason to change I think we can follow same syntax, what do you
>>> think?
>>
>> As far as I can see, it's not yet integrated in Linux. The latest
>> documentation I can find as of today is:
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10091607/
>>
>> About the first line:
>>
>> """
>>    The SPDX license identifier in kernel files shall be added at the
>> first
>>    possible line in a file which can contain a comment.  For the majority
>> """
>>
>> Some recomandations look a bit inconsistent to me, but I didn't follow
>> all the history:
>>
>> """
>>       C source:    // SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License Expression>
>>       C header:    /* SPDX-License-Identifier: <SPDX License
>> Expression> */
>> """
>>
>>
>
> I tried to study the other repositories using the SPDX tagging e.g.
> uboot (http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=tree) and odp etc. They
> followed the syntax of copyright followed by SPDX.

Thomas,
	Before I rework,
	What is your opinion w.r.t tooling in DPDK w.r.t SPDX.

I saw a patch for checkpatch in Linux, which will also check for SPDX 
presence for any new file, however this patch only checked first two 
line for SPDX presence. (currently it is nak for other reasons)

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10053699/

If it makes easy for us, we can use the SPDX as first/second line 
convention.


regards,
Hemant


>
> Also, typically all dpdk files starts with "/*-", I am not sure about
> the purpose of the "-"?
>





>
>
>> Olivier
>>
>
>