On 09/15/2016 05:09 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-09-15 15:09, Jan Viktorin: >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:00:25 +0100 >> "Hunt, David" <david.hunt at intel.com> wrote: >> >>>> new file mode 100644 >>>> index 0000000..56135ed >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_soc.c >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ >>>> +/*- >>>> + * BSD LICENSE >>>> + * >>>> + * Copyright(c) 2016 RehiveTech. All rights reserved. >>>> + * All rights reserved. >>> >>> Duplicate "All rights reserved" >> >> This is present in many source files in DPDK... I don't know why. >> >> lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_pci.c >> lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_dev.c >> ... > > It would deserve a dedicated thread to discuss legal sense of these things. > I'm not a lawyer but I think "All rights reserved." has no real sense. >
From a layman (such as myself) perspective it indeed seems totally ludicrous in the context of this particular license :) Whether it makes more sense to lawyers I wouldn't know, but as for the background: it's present in both 2- and 3-clause BSD licenses so *one* of them is probably best left alone. According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:BSD, in the 3-clause BSD license "All rights reserved" is on a line of its own. In the other variants it follows the copyright holder. So that's probably where the duplicates originate from. - Panu -
