From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hemant Agrawal Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Introducing SPDX License Identifiers Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 10:27:08 +0530 Message-ID: <03e608b1-e15f-a7ff-e2b1-ee4637f6a6c0@nxp.com> References: <1511768764-14595-1-git-send-email-hemant.agrawal@nxp.com> <1512117499-23412-1-git-send-email-hemant.agrawal@nxp.com> <6fa25695-a0da-0357-c769-02d3257bc44c@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , , To: Ferruh Yigit , Return-path: Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam01on0073.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.32.73]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17E937CFD for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 05:57:15 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <6fa25695-a0da-0357-c769-02d3257bc44c@intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 12/8/2017 5:16 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 12/1/2017 12:38 AM, Hemant Agrawal wrote: >> The DPDK uses the Open Source BSD-3-Clause license for the core libraries >> and drivers. The kernel components are naturally GPLv2 licensed. >> >> Many of the files in the DPDK source code contain the full text of the >> applicable license. For example, most of the BSD-3-Clause files contain a >> full copy of the BSD-3-Clause license text. >> >> 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 >> Unique License Identifiers in source files as defined by the Linux >> Foundation's SPDX project [1]. >> >> 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/. >> >> 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 >> SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause >> >> To label a file as GPL-2.0 (e.g., for code that runs in the kernel), the >> following text would be used: >> >> Copyright (C) [YEAR] NAME-OF-COPYRIGHT-HOLDER >> SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >> >> To label a file as dual-licensed with BSD-3-Clause and GPL-2.0 (e.g., for >> code that is shared between the kernel and userspace), the following text >> would be used: >> >> Copyright (C) [YEAR] NAME-OF-COPYRIGHT-HOLDER >> SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0 >> >> To label a file as dual-licensed with BSD-3-Clause and LGPL-2.1 (e.g., for >> code that is shared between the kernel and userspace), the following text >> would be used: >> >> Copyright (C) [YEAR] NAME-OF-COPYRIGHT-HOLDER >> SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause OR LGPL-2.1 >> >> Note: Any new file contributions in DPDK shall adhere to the above scheme. >> It is also being recommended to replace the existing license text in the >> code with SPDX-License-Identifiers. >> >> Note 2: DPDK currently adhere to it's IP policies[3]. Any exception to this >> shall be approved by DPDK tech board and DPDK Governing Board. Steps for >> any exception approval: >> 1. Mention the appropriate license identifier form SPDX. If the license is >> not listed in SPDX Licenses. It is the submitters responsibiliity to get >> it first listed. >> 2. Get the required approval from the DPDK Technical Board. Technical board >> may advise the author to check alternate means first. If no other >> alternatives are found and the merit of the contributions are important >> for DPDK's mission, it may decide on such exception with two-thirds vote >> of the members. >> 3. Technical board then approach Governing board for such limited approval >> for the given contribution only. >> >> Any approvals shall be documented in "Licenses/exceptions.txt" with record >> dates. >> >> Note 3: Projects like U-boot have been been using SPDX License Idenfiers >> successfully [2]. They have been referered in implementing SPDX based >> guidelines in DPDK. >> >> Note 4: From the legal point of view, this patch is supposed to be only a >> change to the textual representation of the license information, but in no >> way any change to the actual license terms. With this patch applied, all >> files will still be licensed under the same terms they were before. >> >> Signed-off-by: Hemant Agrawal >> Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger >> --- >> LICENSE.GPL | 339 ------------------------ >> LICENSE.LGPL | 502 ------------------------------------ >> Licenses/Exceptions.txt | 12 + >> Licenses/README | 82 ++++++ >> Licenses/bsd-3-clause.txt | 9 + >> Licenses/gpl-2.0.txt | 339 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> Licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt | 502 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Hi Hemant, > > Are new gpl-2.0.txt & lgpl-2.1.txt files identical with old LICENSE.GPL & > LICENSE.LGPL? > > If so, does it make sense to make commit with "git mv" so that patch won't > contain all text resulting smaller patch, and it will highlight that nothing > changed but moved/renamed? > > Thanks, > ferruh > > <....> > Yes. I missed to notice that. I will fix it.