On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:46:23AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > Hi Hemant, > > Some comments below > > 08/12/2017 08:41, Hemant Agrawal: > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Licenses/Exceptions.txt > > Please use lowercase for file and directory. > By the way, the text is referring to exceptions.txt. > > > @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ > > +This file will record any exceptions in DPDK Project with respect to DPDK > > +IP License policy as defined in DPDK Charter available at: > > + > > +http://dpdk.org/about/charter#ip > > This link might be indented. > > I think we should make clear that > - BSD-3-Clause > - GPL-2.0 > - dual BSD-3-Clause/GPL-2.0 > - dual BSD-3-Clause/LGPL-2.1 > are not exceptions. > > > +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > +License Name SPDX Identifier TB Approval Date GB > > Approval Date File name > > +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The table is large, and file names will be long. > Can we remove "License Name" as it is redundant with SPDX id? > > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Licenses/README > > Good idea to add a README here. > > > @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ > > +The DPDK uses the Open Source BSD-3-Clause license for the core libraries > > and > > +drivers. The kernel components are naturally GPLv2 licensed. > > You should use SPDX GPL-2.0 > > > +Including big blocks of License headers in all files blows up the > > +source code with mostly redundant information. An additional problem > > +is that even the same licenses are referred to by a number of > > +slightly varying text blocks (full, abbreviated, different > > +indentation, line wrapping and/or white space, with obsolete address > > +information, ...) which makes validation and automatic processing a > > nightmare. > > + > > +To make this easier, DPDK is adpoting the use of a single line reference to > > Please do not use this tense in the README. > We could say "DPDK uses" instead of "DPDK is adpoting the use". > > > +Unique License Identifiers in source files as defined by the Linux > > Foundation's > > +SPDX project [1]. > > My preference is to insert URLs inline to make reading flow easier. > > > +Adding license information in this fashion, rather than adding full license > > +text, can be more efficient for developers; decreases errors; and improves > > +automated detection of licenses. The current set of valid, predefined SPDX > > +identifiers is set forth on the SPDX License List[2] > > +at https://spdx.org/licenses/. > > Here you are mixing inline and reference :) > > > +For example, to label a file as subject to the BSD-3-Clause license, > > +the following text would be used: > > + > > +Copyright (C) [YEAR] NAME-OF-COPYRIGHT-HOLDER > > I think (C) is useless.
It may be, I can't comment legally, but it is standard practice on all the current copyright lines inserted by the various contributing companies. > About the YEAR, we should explicit what it is. > I think it is only the first year, and we do not need to update > the last year of update. > We should also explicit why it is there and why it is not required > to add more copyrights. > The copyright is required to express who is allowed to declare the > license of the code. > It is a common practice to add a Copyright line when doing a big update. > I think it is fair, but for small changes, it is really not required > as we implicitly comply with the current copyright holder and license. > I'd be wary about starting to specify formats for the copyright lines, as such things are often specified in a particular format by those outside the actual development team. For now, let's just focus on the SPDX tags. /Bruce
