From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 16:26:30 +0100 Message-ID: <7354221f-48c7-05fc-38ae-4d09e956a408@intel.com> References: <20180409131113.20729-1-marko.kovacevic@intel.com> <9d6e8082-341b-3ff5-9918-82a4bc9e149d@nxp.com> <3911347.aynUWzppg9@xps> <6DC05C7C5F25994B81B3F2F214251F6638E948@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com> <6DC05C7C5F25994B81B3F2F214251F6601FEA917@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" To: "Kovacevic, Marko" , "Mcnamara, John" , Hemant Agrawal , Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B3A52D13 for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 17:26:33 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <6DC05C7C5F25994B81B3F2F214251F6601FEA917@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Language: en-US 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 5/30/2018 4:18 PM, Kovacevic, Marko wrote: >>> [Hemant] I got following recommendation from the Linux Foundation legal: >>> "For files that are e.g. release scripts and documentation, these are >>> typically understood to consist of contributions that are copyrighted >>> by their contributors. So even if there isn't a notice in the file, it >>> would still generally be understood to be subject to its contributors' >>> copyrights and to be licensed out under an open source license. >>> >>> As you suggested, adding copyright and license notices can help >>> clarify these specifics for downstream uses. We have recommended as >>> best practices that projects add something like "Copyright The >>> _________ Project" or "Copyright The __________ contributors". I think >>> your suggestion of "Copyright The DPDK Community" is fine. And yes, >>> I'd recommend including the appropriate license notice and/or SPDX >>> identifier in these files as well. >>> Just to be clear, also, we _don't_ recommend removing pre-existing >>> copyright notices unless you are the copyright holder in question. >>> It's generally understood that it's fine to add general copyright >>> notices where accurate, but only the copyright holder should remove or >>> modify their own notices. " >>> >>> [Hemant] So, "The DPDK Project" or "The DPDK contributors" or "The >>> DPDK community" - anything is fine, we have to use just one of these >>> consistently. > > > After some discussion intel would prefer to keep the license as is on the release notes. > Other contributors/companies can add respective SPDX license for their contributions Hi Hemant, Would it matter if keep the Intel copyright in the release notes that already have it, and add "The DPDK contributors" as a new copyright holder? And for the ones don't have any copyright, add only "The DPDK contributors". It is sometimes not easy call to give a go to remove an existing copyright, even for release notes ... Thanks, ferruh