> On Dec 13, 2017, at 5:38 AM, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> > wrote: > > 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.
The ‘(C)’ is part of the Copyright and should not be removed. > >> 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. I agree, focus on the SPDX tags only at this point. > > /Bruce Regards, Keith
