On 5/30/2018 4:18 PM, Kovacevic, Marko wrote: >>> [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. >>> >>> As you suggested, adding copyright and license notices can help >>> clarify these specifics for downstream uses. We have recommended as >>> best practices 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 where accurate, but only the copyright holder should remove or >>> modify their own notices. " >>> >>> [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. > > > After some discussion intel would prefer to keep the license as is on the > release notes. > Other contributors/companies can add respective SPDX license for their > contributions
Hi Hemant, Would it matter if keep the Intel copyright in the release notes that already have it, and add "The DPDK contributors" as a new copyright holder? And for the ones don't have any copyright, add only "The DPDK contributors". It is sometimes not easy call to give a go to remove an existing copyright, even for release notes ... Thanks, ferruh
