Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files
Hi Ferruh, 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". [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
Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files
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
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. " > > > > [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.
Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files
> -Original Message- > From: Hemant Agrawal [mailto:hemant.agra...@nxp.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 4:25 AM > To: Mcnamara, John ; Kovacevic, Marko > ; Thomas Monjalon ; Yigit, > Ferruh > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > 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. " > > [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 --
Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files
HI John, > > -Original Message- > From: Kovacevic, Marko [mailto:marko.kovace...@intel.com] > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 9:00 PM > To: Thomas Monjalon ; Hemant Agrawal > ; Yigit, Ferruh > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Mcnamara, John > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files > > > > > > > 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" 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
Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files
> -Original Message- > From: Hemant Agrawal [mailto:hemant.agra...@nxp.com] > Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2018 1:59 PM > To: Kovacevic, Marko ; Thomas Monjalon > ; Yigit, Ferruh > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Mcnamara, John > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files > > > -Original Message- > From: Kovacevic, Marko [mailto:marko.kovace...@intel.com] > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 9:00 PM > To: Thomas Monjalon ; Hemant Agrawal > ; Yigit, Ferruh > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Mcnamara, John > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files > > > > > > > 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" 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
Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files
-Original Message- From: Kovacevic, Marko [mailto:marko.kovace...@intel.com] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 9:00 PM To: Thomas Monjalon ; Hemant Agrawal ; Yigit, Ferruh Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Mcnamara, John Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files > > > 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
Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files
> > > 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
Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files
10/04/2018 06:38, Hemant Agrawal: > On 4/9/2018 7:24 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > On 4/9/2018 2:11 PM, Marko Kovacevic wrote: > >> Added SPDX headers to doc files to have them aligned with > >> the other doc files. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Marko Kovacevic > > > > <...> > > > >> 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... > > 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.
Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files
On 4/9/2018 7:24 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: On 4/9/2018 2:11 PM, Marko Kovacevic wrote: Added SPDX headers to doc files to have them aligned with the other doc files. Signed-off-by: Marko Kovacevic <...> 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... LF legal reported it as missing license. All other *.rst files have the license headers. Let me check it with LF Legal. Regards, Hemant Thanks, ferruh
Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: add SPDX Licence to doc files
On 4/9/2018 2:11 PM, Marko Kovacevic wrote: > Added SPDX headers to doc files to have them aligned with > the other doc files. > > Signed-off-by: Marko Kovacevic <...> > 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
