[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/bnxt: convert to SPDX license tag

Hemant Agrawal hemant.agrawal at nxp.com
Tue Mar 27 08:51:32 CEST 2018


Hi Scott,

> On 18-03-26 12:28 AM, Hemant Agrawal wrote:
> > Hi Ajit/Scott,
> >
> >
> > On 3/26/2018 12:37 AM, Ajit Khaparde wrote:
> >> From: Scott Branden <scott.branden at broadcom.com>
> >>
> >> Update the license header on bnxt files to be the standard
> >> BSD-3-Clause license used for the rest of DPDK, bring the files in
> >> compliance with the DPDK licensing policy.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden at broadcom.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde at broadcom.com>
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt.h b/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt.h index
> >> b5a0badfc..967c94d14 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt.h
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt.h
> >> @@ -1,34 +1,7 @@
> >> -/*-
> >> - *   BSD LICENSE
> >> - *
> >> - *   Copyright(c) Broadcom Limited.
> >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> >> +/*
> >> + *   Copyright(c) 2014-2018 Broadcom
> >>    *   All rights reserved.
> >> - *
> >> - *   Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
> >> without
> >> - *   modification, are permitted provided that the following
> >> conditions
> >> - *   are met:
> >> - *
> >> - *     * Redistributions of source code must retain the above
> >> copyright
> >> - *       notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> >> - *     * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
> >> copyright
> >> - *       notice, this list of conditions and the following
> >> disclaimer in
> >> - *       the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
> >> - *       distribution.
> >> - *     * Neither the name of Broadcom Corporation nor the names of
> >> its
> >> - *       contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
> >> derived
> >> - *       from this software without specific prior written permission.
> >> - *
> >> - *   THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND
> >> CONTRIBUTORS
> >> - *   "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT
> >> NOT
> >> - *   LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND
> >> FITNESS FOR
> >> - *   A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
> >> COPYRIGHT
> >> - *   OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
> >> INCIDENTAL,
> >> - *   SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
> >> NOT
> >> - *   LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS
> >> OF USE,
> >> - *   DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED
> AND
> >> ON ANY
> >> - *   THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR
> >> TORT
> >> - *   (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT
> OF
> >> THE USE
> >> - *   OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> >> DAMAGE.
> >>    */
> >>     #ifndef _BNXT_H_
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_cpr.c
> >> b/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_cpr.c index 737bb060a..bb57c6f4f 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_cpr.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_cpr.c
> >> @@ -1,34 +1,7 @@
> >> -/*-
> >> - *   BSD LICENSE
> >> - *
> >> - *   Copyright(c) Broadcom Limited.
> >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> >> +/*
> >> + *   Copyright(c) 2014-2018 Broadcom
> >>    *   All rights reserved.
> >>
> > It is preferred to use  "/*" commenting instead of "//" in dpdk for
> > first line SPDX identifer.
> > It will maintain the consistency and help in future automation for
> > license check.
> The "//" comment was done to match the SPDX identifier format that the linux
> kernel uses in their changes to SPDX.  In order to be consistent with the licensing
> of files between various open source projects I intentionally left the comment in
> this format.  And, linux kernel open source community is much larger than
> DPDK.  So why create a different format for the license header than what is
> already being used.
> I had a comment similar to your question to Greg K-H when he made the change
> in the kernel.
> So, for consistency, using "//" will help in future automation for license
> check.  Since you leverage checkpatch from the kernel, such feature added to
> checkpatch will check against linux kernel license comment format, not
> DPDK.  Sure, we can be different in DPDK vs.
> linux kernel and other
> open source projects that will follow such license comment conventions. But,
> for what purpose?

[Hemant] During the DPDK's SPDX transition all options were discussed. But somehow the community did not felt comfortable in allowing "//" kind of commenting. 
However there was discussions to allow the exception only for the "Dual Licensed code", which is common with kernel. 

There is not consistent guideline for SPDX tag placing or style among different open source project.   I did review few projects before migrating DPDK to SPDX.
e.g. Kernel, U-boot, ODP.  All of them uses different style. 

W.r.t checkpatch,  when I checked the SPDX support patch last time, it was supporting both styles. I have not checked it recently. In any case DPDK wraps the kernel checkpatch with additional options, the same can be used for SPDX checking as well. 

> > Regards,
> > Hemant
> Regards,
>   Scott


More information about the dev mailing list