> > [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.