> On 10/19/2022 4:13 PM, Hemant Agrawal wrote: > >> On 10/10/2022 11:17 AM, Junfeng Guo wrote: > >>> The following base code is based on Google Virtual Ethernet (gve) > >>> driver v1.3.0 under MIT license. > >>> - gve_adminq.c > >>> - gve_adminq.h > >>> - gve_desc.h > >>> - gve_desc_dqo.h > >>> - gve_register.h > >>> - gve.h > >>> > >>> The original code is in: > >>> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgi > >>> th > >>> ub.com%2FGoogleCloudPlatform%2Fcompute-virtual-ethernet- > >> linux%2F%2F&am > >>> > >> > p;data=05%7C01%7Chemant.agrawal%40nxp.com%7C45cbc9718dcc40d04e4 > >> 508dab1 > >>> > >> > d82440%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C6380178391 > >> 21579415 > >>> %7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2lu > MzIi > >> LCJBTiI6I > >>> > >> > k1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LHunq53xMl8i > >> W6%2B3scjZ > >>> q0Bx7oF08yLWk424aw5lnwA%3D&reserved=0 > >>> tree/v1.3.0/google/gve > >>> > >>> Note that these code are not Intel files and they come from the > >>> kernel community. The base code there has the statement of > >>> SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT). Here we just follow the > >>> required MIT license as an exception to DPDK. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Xiaoyun Li <xiaoyun...@intel.com> > >>> Signed-off-by: Haiyue Wang <haiyue.w...@intel.com> > >>> Signed-off-by: Junfeng Guo <junfeng....@intel.com> > >> > >> <...> > >> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/gve/base/gve.h b/drivers/net/gve/base/gve.h > >>> new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..1b0d59b639 > >>> --- /dev/null > >>> +++ b/drivers/net/gve/base/gve.h > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ > >>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT > >>> + * Google Virtual Ethernet (gve) driver > >>> + * Version: 1.3.0 > >> > >> There is a version macro in the code, is version information required > >> in the file comment? > >> > >>> + * Copyright (C) 2015-2022 Google, Inc. > >>> + * Copyright(C) 2022 Intel Corporation > >> > >> I don't know if it is OK to add Intel copyright, as far as I know > >> this requires big enough contribution to the code, if this is copy of > >> existing code, may be only original copyright should exist. > >> > > [Hemant] Yes, the general guideline is that one should add their copyright > > if > they have big enough contribution. But at the end it is a guideline - not the > rule. > > It is up-to the original copyright holder to object. > > Does this mean as long as original copyright holder did not object, it is OK > to > add more copyright? > I don't think they are represented or aware of it this change at all, I > believe > we (as community) also have responsibility to make these things correct, in > our capacity.
[Hemant] I tried to convey the same in decent words. Yes, it is incorrect to add copyright without major contribution change. Intel team shall provide details about what is their contribution over the original code. Or they should remove their copyright > > > >> cc'ed @Hemant and @Stephen for more comment.
