doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files
PATCH 1/1 doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files
Added SPDX headers to doc files to have them aligned with the other doc files.
--- doc/guides/contributing/cheatsheet.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/contributing/coding_style.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/contributing/design.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/contributing/documentation.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/contributing/img/patch_cheatsheet.svg | 3 ++- doc/guides/contributing/index.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/contributing/patches.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/contributing/stable.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/contributing/versioning.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/linux_gsg/nic_perf_intel_platform.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_04.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_07.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_11.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_02.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_05.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_08.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_11.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_18_02.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_2_2.rst | 3 +++ 20 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
doc/guides/contributing/cheatsheet.rst +3 -0
@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause + Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation + Patch Cheatsheet ================
doc/guides/contributing/coding_style.rst +3 -0
@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause + Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation + .. _coding_style: DPDK Coding Style
doc/guides/contributing/design.rst +3 -0
@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause + Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation + Design ======
doc/guides/contributing/documentation.rst +3 -0
@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause + Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation + .. _doc_guidelines: DPDK Documentation Guidelines
doc/guides/contributing/img/patch_cheatsheet.svg +2 -1
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> -<!-- Created with Inkscape (http://www.inkscape.org/) --> +<!-- SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause --> +<!-- Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation --> <svg xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
doc/guides/contributing/index.rst +3 -0
@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause + Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation + Contributor's Guidelines ========================
doc/guides/contributing/patches.rst +3 -0
@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause + Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation + .. submitting_patches: Contributing Code to DPDK
doc/guides/contributing/stable.rst +3 -0
@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause + Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation + .. stable_lts_releases: DPDK Stable Releases and Long Term Support
doc/guides/contributing/versioning.rst +3 -0
@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause + Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation + Managing ABI updates ====================
doc/guides/linux_gsg/nic_perf_intel_platform.rst +3 -0
@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause + Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation + How to get best performance with NICs on Intel platforms ========================================================
doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst +3 -0
@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause + Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation + ABI and API Deprecation =======================
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_04.rst +3 -0
@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause + Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation + DPDK Release 16.04 ==================
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_07.rst +3 -0
@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause + Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation + DPDK Release 16.07 ==================
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_11.rst +3 -0
@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause + Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation + DPDK Release 16.11 ==================
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_02.rst +3 -0
@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause + Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation + DPDK Release 17.02 ==================
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_05.rst +3 -0
@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause + Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation + DPDK Release 17.05 ==================
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_08.rst +3 -0
@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause + Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation + DPDK Release 17.08 ==================
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_11.rst +3 -0
@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause + Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation + DPDK Release 17.11 ==================
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_18_02.rst +3 -0
@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause + Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation + DPDK Release 18.02 ==================
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_2_2.rst +3 -0
@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause + Copyright(c) 2018 Intel Corporation + DPDK Release 2.2 ================
Signature · 1 line
2.9.5
Quoted 4 lines · Marko Kovacevic
Added SPDX headers to doc files to have them aligned with the other doc files.
Signed-off-by Marko Kovacevic <[email protected]>
<...>
Quoted 9 lines
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_04.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_07.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_11.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_02.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_05.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_08.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_11.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_18_02.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_2_2.rst | 3 +++
Hi Hemant,
What does it mean to have a license header in release notes?
It looks unnecessary from both license and copyright point of view, is there a legal requirement for it?
Indeed I was thinking removing the header from the release notes that has it...
Thanks,
ferruh
Quoted 18 lines · Ferruh Yigit
Quoted 4 lines · Marko Kovacevic
Added SPDX headers to doc files to have them aligned with the other doc files.
Signed-off-by Marko Kovacevic <[email protected]><...>
Quoted 9 lines
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_04.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_07.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_11.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_02.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_05.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_08.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_11.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_18_02.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_2_2.rst | 3 +++
Quoted 7 lines
Hi Hemant,
What does it mean to have a license header in release notes?
It looks unnecessary from both license and copyright point of view, is there a legal requirement for it?Indeed I was thinking removing the header from the release notes that has it...
LF legal reported it as missing license. All other *.rst files have the license headers.
Let me check it with LF Legal.
Regards,
Hemant
Quoted 4 lines
Thanks,
ferruh
10/04/2018 06:38, Hemant Agrawal:
Quoted 25 lines · Ferruh Yigit
Quoted 24 lines · Marko Kovacevic
Quoted 4 lines
Added SPDX headers to doc files to have them aligned with the other doc files.
Signed-off-by Marko Kovacevic <[email protected]><...>
Quoted 9 lines
doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_04.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_07.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_16_11.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_02.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_05.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_08.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_11.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_18_02.rst | 3 +++ doc/guides/rel_notes/release_2_2.rst | 3 +++Hi Hemant,
What does it mean to have a license header in release notes?
It looks unnecessary from both license and copyright point of view, is there a legal requirement for it?
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
Indeed I was thinking removing the header from the release notes that has it...
LF legal reported it as missing license. All other *.rst files have the license headers.
Let me check it with LF Legal.
It has been recommended to add SPDX tags to release notes, with a global copyright on behalf of all contributors, or community.
We need a v2 of this patch, thanks.
Quoted 8 lines
It has been recommended to add SPDX tags to release notes, with a global copyright on behalf of all contributors, or community.
We need a v2 of this patch, thanks.
Hi Thomas,
What exactly is the global copyright ?
Marko K
-----Original Message-----
From: Kovacevic, Marko [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 9:00 PM
To: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>; Hemant Agrawal <[email protected]>; Yigit, Ferruh <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Mcnamara, John <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files
Quoted 8 lines
It has been recommended to add SPDX tags to release notes, with a global copyright on behalf of all contributors, or community.
We need a v2 of this patch, thanks.
Hi Thomas,
What exactly is the global copyright ?
[Hemant] We discussed with LF foundation lawyers. It was suggested to use "Copyright 2018 The DPDK Community"
Regards,
Hemant
Quoted 28 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: Hemant Agrawal [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2018 1:59 PM
To: Kovacevic, Marko <[email protected]>; Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>; Yigit, Ferruh <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Mcnamara, John <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files-----Original Message-----
From: Kovacevic, Marko [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 9:00 PM
To: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>; Hemant Agrawal <[email protected]>; Yigit, Ferruh <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Mcnamara, John <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc filesQuoted 8 lines
It has been recommended to add SPDX tags to release notes, with a global copyright on behalf of all contributors, or community.
We need a v2 of this patch, thanks.
Quoted 6 lines
Hi Thomas,
What exactly is the global copyright ?
[Hemant] We discussed with LF foundation lawyers. It was suggested to use "Copyright 2018 The DPDK Community"
Hi Hemant,
Is that valid? "The DPDK Community" isn't a single, clear entity.
If that is what has been agreed then we are okay with it but I wanted to make 100% sure.
John
HI John,
Quoted 18 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: Kovacevic, Marko [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 9:00 PM
To: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>; Hemant Agrawal <[email protected]>; Yigit, Ferruh <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Mcnamara, John <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc filesQuoted 8 lines
It has been recommended to add SPDX tags to release notes, with a global copyright on behalf of all contributors, or community.
We need a v2 of this patch, thanks.
Quoted 6 lines
Hi Thomas,
What exactly is the global copyright ?
[Hemant] We discussed with LF foundation lawyers. It was suggested to use "Copyright 2018 The DPDK Community"
Hi Hemant,
Is that valid? "The DPDK Community" isn't a single, clear entity.
If that is what has been agreed then we are okay with it but I wanted to make 100% sure.
[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.
Regards,
Hemant
Quoted 33 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: Hemant Agrawal [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 4:25 AM
To: Mcnamara, John <[email protected]>; Kovacevic, Marko <[email protected]>; Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>; Yigit, Ferruh <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files...
[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. "
Quoted 3 lines
[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.
Hi Hemant,
Thanks for the clarification. In that case I'd suggest we use "The DPDK contributors" since that is a recognizable entity.
And if there are no objections, or other recommendations, let's use that for similar cases in the future.
Marko, can you respin the patchset to include that.
John
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 20 lines
[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. "
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
[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
Marko K.
Quoted 20 lines · Marko
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 20 lines
[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. "
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
[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
Hi Ferruh,
Quoted 20 lines · Marko
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 20 lines
[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. "
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
[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".
[Hemant] agree. There is no need to remove the existing copy rights. However the new files which are generic should have the generic copyright.
It is sometimes not easy call to give a go to remove an existing copyright, even for release notes ...
Regards,
Hemant