[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] Introducing SPDX License Identifiers

Bruce Richardson bruce.richardson at intel.com
Wed Dec 13 12:38:31 CET 2017


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


More information about the dev mailing list