Hi Bruce,
Will you please check it with Trishan and DPDK GB board?
DPDK license indicates the correct license types in:
http://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/tree/license/README
However in exception files we added the keyword "Dual" - which is unnecessary
and not part of standard SPDX definition.
I hope they have no objection in getting it corrected.
Regards,
Hemant
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 10:52 PM
> To: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [20.08 PATCH] license: removing the dual prefix to
> avoid confusion
> Importance: High
>
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 11:28:40 +0530
> Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com> wrote:
>
> > This patch removes the dual keyword from dual license definitions to
> > avoid confusion. As the *dual* word is not required to be added SPDX
> > license.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>
> > ---
> > license/exceptions.txt | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/license/exceptions.txt b/license/exceptions.txt index
> > c984764a0..3afb996ed 100644
> > --- a/license/exceptions.txt
> > +++ b/license/exceptions.txt
> > @@ -5,8 +5,8 @@ IP License policy as defined in DPDK Charter available at:
> >
> > Note that following licenses are not exceptions:-
> > - BSD-3-Clause
> > - - Dual BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0
> > - - Dual BSD-3-Clause OR LGPL-2.1
> > + - BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0
> > + - BSD-3-Clause OR LGPL-2.1
> > - GPL-2.0 (*Only for kernel code*)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------------------------
>
> Makes sense to me, but probably needs Board legal approval
