From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olivier MATZ Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: update licence for network headers Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:58:52 +0100 Message-ID: <20171211085851.4fefe3obd2g7bmbx@platinum> References: <20171208102830.2817-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <448cfe74-224b-8a25-6be3-42c70c6ac514@nxp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Rybchenko , Ferruh Yigit , dev@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon To: Hemant Agrawal Return-path: Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59D90237 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:59:07 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <448cfe74-224b-8a25-6be3-42c70c6ac514@nxp.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 Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 10:57:41AM +0530, Hemant Agrawal wrote: [...] > > License text example in [1] starts from Copyright and has All rights > > reserved. > > I agree that template should be clearly specified from the very beginning. > > > > [1] https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause#licenseText > > > Hi all, > Most templates are showing copyright first and SPDX later i.e. the typical > way for writing the license. > > However some projects has followed it other way around to make it easy for > tools i.e. the TOP line. > > I agree with Ferruh that we shall follow single convention. I will prefer > to do it in following way to make it consistent. (I will also fix my change > patches). > > >> Copyright (C) [YEAR] NAME-OF-COPYRIGHT-HOLDER > >> Copyright (C) [YEAR] NAME-OF-COPYRIGHT-HOLDER-2 > >> Copyright (C) [YEAR] NAME-OF-COPYRIGHT-HOLDER-3 > >> SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause OK for me, I'll send a v2. Olivier