[PATCH] serial: sirf: update copyright years to 2014

[PATCH] serial: sirf: update copyright years to 2014

[Barry Song]

From: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>

Signed-off-by: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
---
 drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c |    3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c
index 49a2ffd..7079b5c 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c
@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
 /*
  * Driver for CSR SiRFprimaII onboard UARTs.
  *
- * Copyright (c) 2011 Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited, a CSR plc group company.
+ * Copyright (c) 2011 - 2014 Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited, a CSR plc group
+ * company.
  *
  * Licensed under GPLv2 or later.
  */
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [PATCH] serial: sirf: update copyright years to 2014

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:08:44PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> From: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
> ---
>  drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c |    3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c
> index 49a2ffd..7079b5c 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c
> @@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
>  /*
>   * Driver for CSR SiRFprimaII onboard UARTs.
>   *
> - * Copyright (c) 2011 Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited, a CSR plc group company.
> + * Copyright (c) 2011 - 2014 Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited, a CSR plc group
> + * company.

I do not see contributions from csr for all of these years, so no, this
is not allowed.  Please go talk with your corporate lawyer if you have
questions about how/when to update the copyright of your files, as I
don't think they would agree that this change is correct.

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] serial: sirf: update copyright years to 2014

[Barry Song]

2014-02-12 22:19 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:08:44PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>> From: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c |    3 ++-
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c
>> index 49a2ffd..7079b5c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c
>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c
>> @@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
>>  /*
>>   * Driver for CSR SiRFprimaII onboard UARTs.
>>   *
>> - * Copyright (c) 2011 Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited, a CSR plc group company.
>> + * Copyright (c) 2011 - 2014 Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited, a CSR plc group
>> + * company.
>
> I do not see contributions from csr for all of these years, so no, this
> is not allowed.  Please go talk with your corporate lawyer if you have
> questions about how/when to update the copyright of your files, as I
> don't think they would agree that this change is correct.

Greg, as i run "git log sirfsoc_uart.c", there are commits from csr
for touched file from 2011 to 2014:

2011:
commit 161e773cbd0c3d1b5b8cc00602e1f72de61ed4f7
Author: Rong Wang <Rong.Wang@csr.com>
Date:   Thu Nov 17 23:17:04 2011 +0800

2012:
commit 5425e03f97d1e5847372aae0b895d8d1c9bf2741
Author: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
Date:   Tue Dec 25 17:32:04 2012 +0800

2013:
commit ac4ce718893c546f7a2d34ab55a8f75842399f86
Author: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
Date:   Wed Jan 16 14:49:27 2013 +0800
...
commit 59f8a62c25b9c2a53e7c359ba9ca611639a4c0b0
Author: Qipan Li <Qipan.Li@csr.com>
Date:   Sat Sep 21 09:02:10 2013 +0800


2014:
commit 388faf9ffdaf92c81243514a2dd4c6ce04d28874
Author: Qipan Li <Qipan.Li@csr.com>
Date:   Fri Jan 3 15:44:07 2014 +0800

commit df8d4aa0d84995bf7fb8d8a978a0d67fff6ca53a
Author: Qipan Li <Qipan.Li@csr.com>
Date:   Fri Jan 3 15:44:08 2014 +0800

>
> greg k-h

-barry

Re: [PATCH] serial: sirf: update copyright years to 2014

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:26:32PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> 2014-02-12 22:19 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:08:44PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> >> From: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c |    3 ++-
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c
> >> index 49a2ffd..7079b5c 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c
> >> @@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
> >>  /*
> >>   * Driver for CSR SiRFprimaII onboard UARTs.
> >>   *
> >> - * Copyright (c) 2011 Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited, a CSR plc group company.
> >> + * Copyright (c) 2011 - 2014 Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited, a CSR plc group
> >> + * company.
> >
> > I do not see contributions from csr for all of these years, so no, this
> > is not allowed.  Please go talk with your corporate lawyer if you have
> > questions about how/when to update the copyright of your files, as I
> > don't think they would agree that this change is correct.
> 
> Greg, as i run "git log sirfsoc_uart.c", there are commits from csr
> for touched file from 2011 to 2014:
> 
> 2011:
> commit 161e773cbd0c3d1b5b8cc00602e1f72de61ed4f7
> Author: Rong Wang <Rong.Wang@csr.com>
> Date:   Thu Nov 17 23:17:04 2011 +0800
> 
> 2012:
> commit 5425e03f97d1e5847372aae0b895d8d1c9bf2741
> Author: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
> Date:   Tue Dec 25 17:32:04 2012 +0800
> 
> 2013:
> commit ac4ce718893c546f7a2d34ab55a8f75842399f86
> Author: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
> Date:   Wed Jan 16 14:49:27 2013 +0800
> ...
> commit 59f8a62c25b9c2a53e7c359ba9ca611639a4c0b0
> Author: Qipan Li <Qipan.Li@csr.com>
> Date:   Sat Sep 21 09:02:10 2013 +0800
> 
> 
> 2014:
> commit 388faf9ffdaf92c81243514a2dd4c6ce04d28874
> Author: Qipan Li <Qipan.Li@csr.com>
> Date:   Fri Jan 3 15:44:07 2014 +0800
> 
> commit df8d4aa0d84995bf7fb8d8a978a0d67fff6ca53a
> Author: Qipan Li <Qipan.Li@csr.com>
> Date:   Fri Jan 3 15:44:08 2014 +0800

And do all of these changes fall under the "copyright is allowed to be
updated" rule that your corporation follows?  Again, please talk to your
corporate lawyer about this, as the rules I have been told to follow do
not seem to match up here.  I'll be glad to discuss this with your
lawyer through email if they have further questions.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] serial: sirf: update copyright years to 2014

[Barry Song]

2014-02-12 22:37 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:26:32PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>> 2014-02-12 22:19 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
>> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:08:44PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>> >> From: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>  drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c |    3 ++-
>> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c
>> >> index 49a2ffd..7079b5c 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c
>> >> @@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
>> >>  /*
>> >>   * Driver for CSR SiRFprimaII onboard UARTs.
>> >>   *
>> >> - * Copyright (c) 2011 Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited, a CSR plc group company.
>> >> + * Copyright (c) 2011 - 2014 Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited, a CSR plc group
>> >> + * company.
>> >
>> > I do not see contributions from csr for all of these years, so no, this
>> > is not allowed.  Please go talk with your corporate lawyer if you have
>> > questions about how/when to update the copyright of your files, as I
>> > don't think they would agree that this change is correct.
>>
>> Greg, as i run "git log sirfsoc_uart.c", there are commits from csr
>> for touched file from 2011 to 2014:
>>
>> 2011:
>> commit 161e773cbd0c3d1b5b8cc00602e1f72de61ed4f7
>> Author: Rong Wang <Rong.Wang@csr.com>
>> Date:   Thu Nov 17 23:17:04 2011 +0800
>>
>> 2012:
>> commit 5425e03f97d1e5847372aae0b895d8d1c9bf2741
>> Author: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
>> Date:   Tue Dec 25 17:32:04 2012 +0800
>>
>> 2013:
>> commit ac4ce718893c546f7a2d34ab55a8f75842399f86
>> Author: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
>> Date:   Wed Jan 16 14:49:27 2013 +0800
>> ...
>> commit 59f8a62c25b9c2a53e7c359ba9ca611639a4c0b0
>> Author: Qipan Li <Qipan.Li@csr.com>
>> Date:   Sat Sep 21 09:02:10 2013 +0800
>>
>>
>> 2014:
>> commit 388faf9ffdaf92c81243514a2dd4c6ce04d28874
>> Author: Qipan Li <Qipan.Li@csr.com>
>> Date:   Fri Jan 3 15:44:07 2014 +0800
>>
>> commit df8d4aa0d84995bf7fb8d8a978a0d67fff6ca53a
>> Author: Qipan Li <Qipan.Li@csr.com>
>> Date:   Fri Jan 3 15:44:08 2014 +0800
>
> And do all of these changes fall under the "copyright is allowed to be
> updated" rule that your corporation follows?  Again, please talk to your
> corporate lawyer about this, as the rules I have been told to follow do
> not seem to match up here.  I'll be glad to discuss this with your
> lawyer through email if they have further questions.

ok. it seems it is very confused now. i was told we can update
copyright years once we have any valid change in one module.
i will talk with the lawyer of csr. BTW, would you like to share your
idea why it is not ok here since we have changes for all of 2011,
2012, 2013 and 2014. i am not debating this with you, i just want to
collect your input so that i can output to csr lawyer and customers.

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

-barry

Re: [PATCH] serial: sirf: update copyright years to 2014

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:47:42PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> 2014-02-12 22:37 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:26:32PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> >> 2014-02-12 22:19 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> >> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:08:44PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> >> >> From: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
> >> >>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
> >> >> ---
> >> >>  drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c |    3 ++-
> >> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> >>
> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c
> >> >> index 49a2ffd..7079b5c 100644
> >> >> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c
> >> >> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c
> >> >> @@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
> >> >>  /*
> >> >>   * Driver for CSR SiRFprimaII onboard UARTs.
> >> >>   *
> >> >> - * Copyright (c) 2011 Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited, a CSR plc group company.
> >> >> + * Copyright (c) 2011 - 2014 Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited, a CSR plc group
> >> >> + * company.
> >> >
> >> > I do not see contributions from csr for all of these years, so no, this
> >> > is not allowed.  Please go talk with your corporate lawyer if you have
> >> > questions about how/when to update the copyright of your files, as I
> >> > don't think they would agree that this change is correct.
> >>
> >> Greg, as i run "git log sirfsoc_uart.c", there are commits from csr
> >> for touched file from 2011 to 2014:
> >>
> >> 2011:
> >> commit 161e773cbd0c3d1b5b8cc00602e1f72de61ed4f7
> >> Author: Rong Wang <Rong.Wang@csr.com>
> >> Date:   Thu Nov 17 23:17:04 2011 +0800
> >>
> >> 2012:
> >> commit 5425e03f97d1e5847372aae0b895d8d1c9bf2741
> >> Author: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
> >> Date:   Tue Dec 25 17:32:04 2012 +0800
> >>
> >> 2013:
> >> commit ac4ce718893c546f7a2d34ab55a8f75842399f86
> >> Author: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
> >> Date:   Wed Jan 16 14:49:27 2013 +0800
> >> ...
> >> commit 59f8a62c25b9c2a53e7c359ba9ca611639a4c0b0
> >> Author: Qipan Li <Qipan.Li@csr.com>
> >> Date:   Sat Sep 21 09:02:10 2013 +0800
> >>
> >>
> >> 2014:
> >> commit 388faf9ffdaf92c81243514a2dd4c6ce04d28874
> >> Author: Qipan Li <Qipan.Li@csr.com>
> >> Date:   Fri Jan 3 15:44:07 2014 +0800
> >>
> >> commit df8d4aa0d84995bf7fb8d8a978a0d67fff6ca53a
> >> Author: Qipan Li <Qipan.Li@csr.com>
> >> Date:   Fri Jan 3 15:44:08 2014 +0800
> >
> > And do all of these changes fall under the "copyright is allowed to be
> > updated" rule that your corporation follows?  Again, please talk to your
> > corporate lawyer about this, as the rules I have been told to follow do
> > not seem to match up here.  I'll be glad to discuss this with your
> > lawyer through email if they have further questions.
> 
> ok. it seems it is very confused now. i was told we can update
> copyright years once we have any valid change in one module.
> i will talk with the lawyer of csr. BTW, would you like to share your
> idea why it is not ok here since we have changes for all of 2011,
> 2012, 2013 and 2014. i am not debating this with you, i just want to
> collect your input so that i can output to csr lawyer and customers.

Well, your 2012 change doesn't seem to be "significant" to warrent a
normal copyright update, but the update is usually "less strict" than an
original mark, so that might be ok, now that I review these closer.

But I'd still prefer to get the opinion of your lawyer about this.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] serial: sirf: update copyright years to 2014

[Barry Song]

2014-02-13 0:12 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:47:42PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>> 2014-02-12 22:37 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
>> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:26:32PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>> >> 2014-02-12 22:19 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
>> >> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:08:44PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>> >> >> From: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
>> >> >> ---
>> >> >>  drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c |    3 ++-
>> >> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c
>> >> >> index 49a2ffd..7079b5c 100644
>> >> >> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c
>> >> >> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/sirfsoc_uart.c
>> >> >> @@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
>> >> >>  /*
>> >> >>   * Driver for CSR SiRFprimaII onboard UARTs.
>> >> >>   *
>> >> >> - * Copyright (c) 2011 Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited, a CSR plc group company.
>> >> >> + * Copyright (c) 2011 - 2014 Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited, a CSR plc group
>> >> >> + * company.
>> >> >
>> >> > I do not see contributions from csr for all of these years, so no, this
>> >> > is not allowed.  Please go talk with your corporate lawyer if you have
>> >> > questions about how/when to update the copyright of your files, as I
>> >> > don't think they would agree that this change is correct.
>> >>
>> >> Greg, as i run "git log sirfsoc_uart.c", there are commits from csr
>> >> for touched file from 2011 to 2014:
>> >>
>> >> 2011:
>> >> commit 161e773cbd0c3d1b5b8cc00602e1f72de61ed4f7
>> >> Author: Rong Wang <Rong.Wang@csr.com>
>> >> Date:   Thu Nov 17 23:17:04 2011 +0800
>> >>
>> >> 2012:
>> >> commit 5425e03f97d1e5847372aae0b895d8d1c9bf2741
>> >> Author: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
>> >> Date:   Tue Dec 25 17:32:04 2012 +0800
>> >>
>> >> 2013:
>> >> commit ac4ce718893c546f7a2d34ab55a8f75842399f86
>> >> Author: Barry Song <Baohua.Song@csr.com>
>> >> Date:   Wed Jan 16 14:49:27 2013 +0800
>> >> ...
>> >> commit 59f8a62c25b9c2a53e7c359ba9ca611639a4c0b0
>> >> Author: Qipan Li <Qipan.Li@csr.com>
>> >> Date:   Sat Sep 21 09:02:10 2013 +0800
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2014:
>> >> commit 388faf9ffdaf92c81243514a2dd4c6ce04d28874
>> >> Author: Qipan Li <Qipan.Li@csr.com>
>> >> Date:   Fri Jan 3 15:44:07 2014 +0800
>> >>
>> >> commit df8d4aa0d84995bf7fb8d8a978a0d67fff6ca53a
>> >> Author: Qipan Li <Qipan.Li@csr.com>
>> >> Date:   Fri Jan 3 15:44:08 2014 +0800
>> >
>> > And do all of these changes fall under the "copyright is allowed to be
>> > updated" rule that your corporation follows?  Again, please talk to your
>> > corporate lawyer about this, as the rules I have been told to follow do
>> > not seem to match up here.  I'll be glad to discuss this with your
>> > lawyer through email if they have further questions.
>>
>> ok. it seems it is very confused now. i was told we can update
>> copyright years once we have any valid change in one module.
>> i will talk with the lawyer of csr. BTW, would you like to share your
>> idea why it is not ok here since we have changes for all of 2011,
>> 2012, 2013 and 2014. i am not debating this with you, i just want to
>> collect your input so that i can output to csr lawyer and customers.
>
> Well, your 2012 change doesn't seem to be "significant" to warrent a
> normal copyright update, but the update is usually "less strict" than an
> original mark, so that might be ok, now that I review these closer.
>
> But I'd still prefer to get the opinion of your lawyer about this.

Greg, thanks. i will ask csr lawyer to give some feedback if i can :-)

i am not an expert of  copyright and i am really ignorant on it. in my
shallow understand, it seems it is difficult to evaluate what is
"significant" and what is not important as it highly depends on the
personal opinion? is this something like "there are a thousand Hamlets
in a thousand people's eyes"?

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

-barry

Re: [PATCH] serial: sirf: update copyright years to 2014

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:26:35AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> > Well, your 2012 change doesn't seem to be "significant" to warrent a
> > normal copyright update, but the update is usually "less strict" than an
> > original mark, so that might be ok, now that I review these closer.
> >
> > But I'd still prefer to get the opinion of your lawyer about this.
> 
> Greg, thanks. i will ask csr lawyer to give some feedback if i can :-)
> 
> i am not an expert of  copyright and i am really ignorant on it. in my
> shallow understand, it seems it is difficult to evaluate what is
> "significant" and what is not important as it highly depends on the
> personal opinion? is this something like "there are a thousand Hamlets
> in a thousand people's eyes"?

It does "depend", but the "general" rule that most everyone follows, and
what I have been advised to stick to, is "1/3 of the file is
modified/added to" by a company/developer.  If that happens, then a
copyright mark is allowed.  That has worked well over the many years of
me having to deal with this, but the issue of "extending" the mark
hasn't really been discussed, so I don't know if that same rule applies
here or not.

Feedback from your lawyer would be great to have on this, thanks.

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] serial: sirf: update copyright years to 2014

[Barry Song]

2014-02-13 0:38 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:26:35AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>> > Well, your 2012 change doesn't seem to be "significant" to warrent a
>> > normal copyright update, but the update is usually "less strict" than an
>> > original mark, so that might be ok, now that I review these closer.
>> >
>> > But I'd still prefer to get the opinion of your lawyer about this.
>>
>> Greg, thanks. i will ask csr lawyer to give some feedback if i can :-)
>>
>> i am not an expert of  copyright and i am really ignorant on it. in my
>> shallow understand, it seems it is difficult to evaluate what is
>> "significant" and what is not important as it highly depends on the
>> personal opinion? is this something like "there are a thousand Hamlets
>> in a thousand people's eyes"?
>
> It does "depend", but the "general" rule that most everyone follows, and
> what I have been advised to stick to, is "1/3 of the file is
> modified/added to" by a company/developer.  If that happens, then a
> copyright mark is allowed.  That has worked well over the many years of
> me having to deal with this, but the issue of "extending" the mark
> hasn't really been discussed, so I don't know if that same rule applies
> here or not.
>
> Feedback from your lawyer would be great to have on this, thanks.
>

Greg, i am inviting our lawyer Cherrie into this, as she is maybe
busy, so we might wait some time.


> greg k-h

-barry

Re: [PATCH] serial: sirf: update copyright years to 2014

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:27:17AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> 2014-02-13 0:38 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:26:35AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> >> > Well, your 2012 change doesn't seem to be "significant" to warrent a
> >> > normal copyright update, but the update is usually "less strict" than an
> >> > original mark, so that might be ok, now that I review these closer.
> >> >
> >> > But I'd still prefer to get the opinion of your lawyer about this.
> >>
> >> Greg, thanks. i will ask csr lawyer to give some feedback if i can :-)
> >>
> >> i am not an expert of  copyright and i am really ignorant on it. in my
> >> shallow understand, it seems it is difficult to evaluate what is
> >> "significant" and what is not important as it highly depends on the
> >> personal opinion? is this something like "there are a thousand Hamlets
> >> in a thousand people's eyes"?
> >
> > It does "depend", but the "general" rule that most everyone follows, and
> > what I have been advised to stick to, is "1/3 of the file is
> > modified/added to" by a company/developer.  If that happens, then a
> > copyright mark is allowed.  That has worked well over the many years of
> > me having to deal with this, but the issue of "extending" the mark
> > hasn't really been discussed, so I don't know if that same rule applies
> > here or not.
> >
> > Feedback from your lawyer would be great to have on this, thanks.
> >
> 
> Greg, i am inviting our lawyer Cherrie into this, as she is maybe
> busy, so we might wait some time.

In my research, it's become apparent that the copyright notice should
just be removed entirely from the files, as they don't mean anything
from a legal standpoint, so updating them shouldn't really be done
either, as they don't mean anything.  Although one could argue, if they
don't mean anything, updating it shouldn't matter, but I don't think
that the transitive is true here...

It will be interesting to find out what your lawyer says about this.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] serial: sirf: update copyright years to 2014

[Barry Song]

2014-02-15 1:14 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:27:17AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>> 2014-02-13 0:38 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
>> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:26:35AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>> >> > Well, your 2012 change doesn't seem to be "significant" to warrent a
>> >> > normal copyright update, but the update is usually "less strict" than an
>> >> > original mark, so that might be ok, now that I review these closer.
>> >> >
>> >> > But I'd still prefer to get the opinion of your lawyer about this.
>> >>
>> >> Greg, thanks. i will ask csr lawyer to give some feedback if i can :-)
>> >>
>> >> i am not an expert of  copyright and i am really ignorant on it. in my
>> >> shallow understand, it seems it is difficult to evaluate what is
>> >> "significant" and what is not important as it highly depends on the
>> >> personal opinion? is this something like "there are a thousand Hamlets
>> >> in a thousand people's eyes"?
>> >
>> > It does "depend", but the "general" rule that most everyone follows, and
>> > what I have been advised to stick to, is "1/3 of the file is
>> > modified/added to" by a company/developer.  If that happens, then a
>> > copyright mark is allowed.  That has worked well over the many years of
>> > me having to deal with this, but the issue of "extending" the mark
>> > hasn't really been discussed, so I don't know if that same rule applies
>> > here or not.
>> >
>> > Feedback from your lawyer would be great to have on this, thanks.
>> >
>>
>> Greg, i am inviting our lawyer Cherrie into this, as she is maybe
>> busy, so we might wait some time.
>
> In my research, it's become apparent that the copyright notice should
> just be removed entirely from the files, as they don't mean anything
> from a legal standpoint, so updating them shouldn't really be done
> either, as they don't mean anything.  Although one could argue, if they
> don't mean anything, updating it shouldn't matter, but I don't think
> that the transitive is true here...
>
> It will be interesting to find out what your lawyer says about this.

Greg, all your comments have been forwarded to our layer and counsel.
pls wait for some time :-)

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

-barry

Re: [PATCH] serial: sirf: update copyright years to 2014

[Barry Song]

2014-02-19 13:16 GMT+08:00 Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>:
> 2014-02-15 1:14 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:27:17AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>>> 2014-02-13 0:38 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
>>> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:26:35AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>>> >> > Well, your 2012 change doesn't seem to be "significant" to warrent a
>>> >> > normal copyright update, but the update is usually "less strict" than an
>>> >> > original mark, so that might be ok, now that I review these closer.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > But I'd still prefer to get the opinion of your lawyer about this.
>>> >>
>>> >> Greg, thanks. i will ask csr lawyer to give some feedback if i can :-)
>>> >>
>>> >> i am not an expert of  copyright and i am really ignorant on it. in my
>>> >> shallow understand, it seems it is difficult to evaluate what is
>>> >> "significant" and what is not important as it highly depends on the
>>> >> personal opinion? is this something like "there are a thousand Hamlets
>>> >> in a thousand people's eyes"?
>>> >
>>> > It does "depend", but the "general" rule that most everyone follows, and
>>> > what I have been advised to stick to, is "1/3 of the file is
>>> > modified/added to" by a company/developer.  If that happens, then a
>>> > copyright mark is allowed.  That has worked well over the many years of
>>> > me having to deal with this, but the issue of "extending" the mark
>>> > hasn't really been discussed, so I don't know if that same rule applies
>>> > here or not.
>>> >
>>> > Feedback from your lawyer would be great to have on this, thanks.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Greg, i am inviting our lawyer Cherrie into this, as she is maybe
>>> busy, so we might wait some time.
>>
>> In my research, it's become apparent that the copyright notice should
>> just be removed entirely from the files, as they don't mean anything
>> from a legal standpoint, so updating them shouldn't really be done
>> either, as they don't mean anything.  Although one could argue, if they
>> don't mean anything, updating it shouldn't matter, but I don't think
>> that the transitive is true here...
>>
>> It will be interesting to find out what your lawyer says about this.
>
> Greg, all your comments have been forwarded to our layer and counsel.
> pls wait for some time :-)

Greg,

here i got some comments from the lawyer.
"
the reason that people want the copyright notice to include 2014 is to
ensure that the copyrighted works have the longest possible life
available under copyright protection.

if the changes that have been made to CSR’s source code for the driver
program (which was originally authored in 2011 - entirely using CSR
original source code) are insignificant — for example, just adding or
editing a few lines of code among hundreds or thousands (or more)
lines of code, those changes are unlikely to be seen as a "derivative
work" that would be the subject of independent copyright protection
(for the changed portion) as of the year in which those changes were
made.  If significant changes were made to the source code, such that
new functionality were added, or a similar upgrade (for efficiency,
etc.), or something along those lines — even if the changes only
amounted to 5 or 10% of the code total — that could be deemed a
derivative work that would be able to have its own copyright notice in
the year in which the changes were created/authored.  There is no hard
and fast rule on the percentage.

for the general guideline that if one-third or more of the program’s
source code has been updated/changed/added, then an updated year can
be set forth in the copyright notice.  That guideline, while useful as
a minor rule of thumb, is not required by law or anything else to my
knowledge — the crux of the issue is really whether the changes amount
to a derivative work."

and after talking with the lawyer, if a new year is added in copyright
notice, it is for protecting the changes in 2013. so "extend the
copyright year" should be wrong. it is not extending the exiting
copyright, it is a new year to protect the new codes changed in the
year.


>
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> greg k-h
>
> -barry

-barry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH] serial: sirf: update copyright years to 2014

[Barry Song]

2014-03-18 10:25 GMT+08:00 Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>:
> 2014-02-19 13:16 GMT+08:00 Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>:
>> 2014-02-15 1:14 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:27:17AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>>>> 2014-02-13 0:38 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
>>>> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:26:35AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>>>> >> > Well, your 2012 change doesn't seem to be "significant" to warrent a
>>>> >> > normal copyright update, but the update is usually "less strict" than an
>>>> >> > original mark, so that might be ok, now that I review these closer.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > But I'd still prefer to get the opinion of your lawyer about this.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Greg, thanks. i will ask csr lawyer to give some feedback if i can :-)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> i am not an expert of  copyright and i am really ignorant on it. in my
>>>> >> shallow understand, it seems it is difficult to evaluate what is
>>>> >> "significant" and what is not important as it highly depends on the
>>>> >> personal opinion? is this something like "there are a thousand Hamlets
>>>> >> in a thousand people's eyes"?
>>>> >
>>>> > It does "depend", but the "general" rule that most everyone follows, and
>>>> > what I have been advised to stick to, is "1/3 of the file is
>>>> > modified/added to" by a company/developer.  If that happens, then a
>>>> > copyright mark is allowed.  That has worked well over the many years of
>>>> > me having to deal with this, but the issue of "extending" the mark
>>>> > hasn't really been discussed, so I don't know if that same rule applies
>>>> > here or not.
>>>> >
>>>> > Feedback from your lawyer would be great to have on this, thanks.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Greg, i am inviting our lawyer Cherrie into this, as she is maybe
>>>> busy, so we might wait some time.
>>>
>>> In my research, it's become apparent that the copyright notice should
>>> just be removed entirely from the files, as they don't mean anything
>>> from a legal standpoint, so updating them shouldn't really be done
>>> either, as they don't mean anything.  Although one could argue, if they
>>> don't mean anything, updating it shouldn't matter, but I don't think
>>> that the transitive is true here...
>>>
>>> It will be interesting to find out what your lawyer says about this.
>>
>> Greg, all your comments have been forwarded to our layer and counsel.
>> pls wait for some time :-)
>
> Greg,
>
> here i got some comments from the lawyer.
> "
> the reason that people want the copyright notice to include 2014 is to
> ensure that the copyrighted works have the longest possible life
> available under copyright protection.
>
> if the changes that have been made to CSR’s source code for the driver
> program (which was originally authored in 2011 - entirely using CSR
> original source code) are insignificant — for example, just adding or
> editing a few lines of code among hundreds or thousands (or more)
> lines of code, those changes are unlikely to be seen as a "derivative
> work" that would be the subject of independent copyright protection
> (for the changed portion) as of the year in which those changes were
> made.  If significant changes were made to the source code, such that
> new functionality were added, or a similar upgrade (for efficiency,
> etc.), or something along those lines — even if the changes only
> amounted to 5 or 10% of the code total — that could be deemed a
> derivative work that would be able to have its own copyright notice in
> the year in which the changes were created/authored.  There is no hard
> and fast rule on the percentage.
>
> for the general guideline that if one-third or more of the program’s
> source code has been updated/changed/added, then an updated year can
> be set forth in the copyright notice.  That guideline, while useful as
> a minor rule of thumb, is not required by law or anything else to my
> knowledge — the crux of the issue is really whether the changes amount
> to a derivative work."
>
> and after talking with the lawyer, if a new year is added in copyright
> notice, it is for protecting the changes in 2013. so "extend the
> copyright year" should be wrong. it is not extending the exiting
> copyright, it is a new year to protect the new codes changed in the
> year.

sorry for typo here,

after talking with the lawyer, if a new year is added in copyright
 notice, it is for protecting the changes in the *new year*. so "extend the
 copyright year" should be wrong. it is not extending the existing
copyright, it is a new year added to protect the new codes changed in the
year.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH] serial: sirf: update copyright years to 2014

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:25:50AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> 2014-02-19 13:16 GMT+08:00 Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>:
> > 2014-02-15 1:14 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:27:17AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> >>> 2014-02-13 0:38 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> >>> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:26:35AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> >>> >> > Well, your 2012 change doesn't seem to be "significant" to warrent a
> >>> >> > normal copyright update, but the update is usually "less strict" than an
> >>> >> > original mark, so that might be ok, now that I review these closer.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > But I'd still prefer to get the opinion of your lawyer about this.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Greg, thanks. i will ask csr lawyer to give some feedback if i can :-)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> i am not an expert of  copyright and i am really ignorant on it. in my
> >>> >> shallow understand, it seems it is difficult to evaluate what is
> >>> >> "significant" and what is not important as it highly depends on the
> >>> >> personal opinion? is this something like "there are a thousand Hamlets
> >>> >> in a thousand people's eyes"?
> >>> >
> >>> > It does "depend", but the "general" rule that most everyone follows, and
> >>> > what I have been advised to stick to, is "1/3 of the file is
> >>> > modified/added to" by a company/developer.  If that happens, then a
> >>> > copyright mark is allowed.  That has worked well over the many years of
> >>> > me having to deal with this, but the issue of "extending" the mark
> >>> > hasn't really been discussed, so I don't know if that same rule applies
> >>> > here or not.
> >>> >
> >>> > Feedback from your lawyer would be great to have on this, thanks.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Greg, i am inviting our lawyer Cherrie into this, as she is maybe
> >>> busy, so we might wait some time.
> >>
> >> In my research, it's become apparent that the copyright notice should
> >> just be removed entirely from the files, as they don't mean anything
> >> from a legal standpoint, so updating them shouldn't really be done
> >> either, as they don't mean anything.  Although one could argue, if they
> >> don't mean anything, updating it shouldn't matter, but I don't think
> >> that the transitive is true here...
> >>
> >> It will be interesting to find out what your lawyer says about this.
> >
> > Greg, all your comments have been forwarded to our layer and counsel.
> > pls wait for some time :-)
> 
> Greg,
> 
> here i got some comments from the lawyer.
> "
> the reason that people want the copyright notice to include 2014 is to
> ensure that the copyrighted works have the longest possible life
> available under copyright protection.

But just putting a number in a file does not have anything to do with
the copyright of the file itself, right?  It can be a "hint", but a lot
of projects are doing away with these types of file "markings" entirely,
as it has been proven to not mean anything.

> if the changes that have been made to CSR’s source code for the driver
> program (which was originally authored in 2011 - entirely using CSR
> original source code) are insignificant — for example, just adding or
> editing a few lines of code among hundreds or thousands (or more)
> lines of code, those changes are unlikely to be seen as a "derivative
> work" that would be the subject of independent copyright protection
> (for the changed portion) as of the year in which those changes were
> made.  If significant changes were made to the source code, such that
> new functionality were added, or a similar upgrade (for efficiency,
> etc.), or something along those lines — even if the changes only
> amounted to 5 or 10% of the code total — that could be deemed a
> derivative work that would be able to have its own copyright notice in
> the year in which the changes were created/authored.  There is no hard
> and fast rule on the percentage.
> 
> for the general guideline that if one-third or more of the program’s
> source code has been updated/changed/added, then an updated year can
> be set forth in the copyright notice.  That guideline, while useful as
> a minor rule of thumb, is not required by law or anything else to my
> knowledge — the crux of the issue is really whether the changes amount
> to a derivative work."

That's an interesting statement, but not what my lawyer has advised me
to abide by.

> and after talking with the lawyer, if a new year is added in copyright
> notice, it is for protecting the changes in 2013. so "extend the
> copyright year" should be wrong. it is not extending the exiting
> copyright, it is a new year to protect the new codes changed in the
> year.

But nothing was changed in your patch in the "code" section, right?

Anyway, care to resend this patch, based on the above information, and
we can try this again?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH] serial: sirf: update copyright years to 2014

[Barry Song]

2014-03-18 10:33 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:25:50AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>> 2014-02-19 13:16 GMT+08:00 Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>:
>> > 2014-02-15 1:14 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
>> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:27:17AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>> >>> 2014-02-13 0:38 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
>> >>> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:26:35AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>> >>> >> > Well, your 2012 change doesn't seem to be "significant" to warrent a
>> >>> >> > normal copyright update, but the update is usually "less strict" than an
>> >>> >> > original mark, so that might be ok, now that I review these closer.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > But I'd still prefer to get the opinion of your lawyer about this.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Greg, thanks. i will ask csr lawyer to give some feedback if i can :-)
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> i am not an expert of  copyright and i am really ignorant on it. in my
>> >>> >> shallow understand, it seems it is difficult to evaluate what is
>> >>> >> "significant" and what is not important as it highly depends on the
>> >>> >> personal opinion? is this something like "there are a thousand Hamlets
>> >>> >> in a thousand people's eyes"?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > It does "depend", but the "general" rule that most everyone follows, and
>> >>> > what I have been advised to stick to, is "1/3 of the file is
>> >>> > modified/added to" by a company/developer.  If that happens, then a
>> >>> > copyright mark is allowed.  That has worked well over the many years of
>> >>> > me having to deal with this, but the issue of "extending" the mark
>> >>> > hasn't really been discussed, so I don't know if that same rule applies
>> >>> > here or not.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Feedback from your lawyer would be great to have on this, thanks.
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> Greg, i am inviting our lawyer Cherrie into this, as she is maybe
>> >>> busy, so we might wait some time.
>> >>
>> >> In my research, it's become apparent that the copyright notice should
>> >> just be removed entirely from the files, as they don't mean anything
>> >> from a legal standpoint, so updating them shouldn't really be done
>> >> either, as they don't mean anything.  Although one could argue, if they
>> >> don't mean anything, updating it shouldn't matter, but I don't think
>> >> that the transitive is true here...
>> >>
>> >> It will be interesting to find out what your lawyer says about this.
>> >
>> > Greg, all your comments have been forwarded to our layer and counsel.
>> > pls wait for some time :-)
>>
>> Greg,
>>
>> here i got some comments from the lawyer.
>> "
>> the reason that people want the copyright notice to include 2014 is to
>> ensure that the copyrighted works have the longest possible life
>> available under copyright protection.
>
> But just putting a number in a file does not have anything to do with
> the copyright of the file itself, right?  It can be a "hint", but a lot
> of projects are doing away with these types of file "markings" entirely,
> as it has been proven to not mean anything.
>
>> if the changes that have been made to CSR’s source code for the driver
>> program (which was originally authored in 2011 - entirely using CSR
>> original source code) are insignificant — for example, just adding or
>> editing a few lines of code among hundreds or thousands (or more)
>> lines of code, those changes are unlikely to be seen as a "derivative
>> work" that would be the subject of independent copyright protection
>> (for the changed portion) as of the year in which those changes were
>> made.  If significant changes were made to the source code, such that
>> new functionality were added, or a similar upgrade (for efficiency,
>> etc.), or something along those lines — even if the changes only
>> amounted to 5 or 10% of the code total — that could be deemed a
>> derivative work that would be able to have its own copyright notice in
>> the year in which the changes were created/authored.  There is no hard
>> and fast rule on the percentage.
>>
>> for the general guideline that if one-third or more of the program’s
>> source code has been updated/changed/added, then an updated year can
>> be set forth in the copyright notice.  That guideline, while useful as
>> a minor rule of thumb, is not required by law or anything else to my
>> knowledge — the crux of the issue is really whether the changes amount
>> to a derivative work."
>
> That's an interesting statement, but not what my lawyer has advised me
> to abide by.
>
>> and after talking with the lawyer, if a new year is added in copyright
>> notice, it is for protecting the changes in 2013. so "extend the
>> copyright year" should be wrong. it is not extending the exiting
>> copyright, it is a new year to protect the new codes changed in the
>> year.
>
> But nothing was changed in your patch in the "code" section, right?

Greg, i think the changes in 2013 are important and we should have
copyright protection for it.
commit 5df831117b85a0 "serial: sirf: make the driver also support
USP-based UART" we added support for a new port, USP port, it is a
real code section.

and commit 8316d04c42b94e "serial: sirf: add DMA support using
dmaengine APIs" added DMA support, which is also code section changes.

>
> Anyway, care to resend this patch, based on the above information, and
> we can try this again?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

-barry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH] serial: sirf: update copyright years to 2014

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:51:49AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> 2014-03-18 10:33 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:25:50AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> >> 2014-02-19 13:16 GMT+08:00 Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>:
> >> > 2014-02-15 1:14 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> >> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:27:17AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> >> >>> 2014-02-13 0:38 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> >> >>> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:26:35AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> >> >>> >> > Well, your 2012 change doesn't seem to be "significant" to warrent a
> >> >>> >> > normal copyright update, but the update is usually "less strict" than an
> >> >>> >> > original mark, so that might be ok, now that I review these closer.
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> > But I'd still prefer to get the opinion of your lawyer about this.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Greg, thanks. i will ask csr lawyer to give some feedback if i can :-)
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> i am not an expert of  copyright and i am really ignorant on it. in my
> >> >>> >> shallow understand, it seems it is difficult to evaluate what is
> >> >>> >> "significant" and what is not important as it highly depends on the
> >> >>> >> personal opinion? is this something like "there are a thousand Hamlets
> >> >>> >> in a thousand people's eyes"?
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > It does "depend", but the "general" rule that most everyone follows, and
> >> >>> > what I have been advised to stick to, is "1/3 of the file is
> >> >>> > modified/added to" by a company/developer.  If that happens, then a
> >> >>> > copyright mark is allowed.  That has worked well over the many years of
> >> >>> > me having to deal with this, but the issue of "extending" the mark
> >> >>> > hasn't really been discussed, so I don't know if that same rule applies
> >> >>> > here or not.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Feedback from your lawyer would be great to have on this, thanks.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Greg, i am inviting our lawyer Cherrie into this, as she is maybe
> >> >>> busy, so we might wait some time.
> >> >>
> >> >> In my research, it's become apparent that the copyright notice should
> >> >> just be removed entirely from the files, as they don't mean anything
> >> >> from a legal standpoint, so updating them shouldn't really be done
> >> >> either, as they don't mean anything.  Although one could argue, if they
> >> >> don't mean anything, updating it shouldn't matter, but I don't think
> >> >> that the transitive is true here...
> >> >>
> >> >> It will be interesting to find out what your lawyer says about this.
> >> >
> >> > Greg, all your comments have been forwarded to our layer and counsel.
> >> > pls wait for some time :-)
> >>
> >> Greg,
> >>
> >> here i got some comments from the lawyer.
> >> "
> >> the reason that people want the copyright notice to include 2014 is to
> >> ensure that the copyrighted works have the longest possible life
> >> available under copyright protection.
> >
> > But just putting a number in a file does not have anything to do with
> > the copyright of the file itself, right?  It can be a "hint", but a lot
> > of projects are doing away with these types of file "markings" entirely,
> > as it has been proven to not mean anything.
> >
> >> if the changes that have been made to CSR’s source code for the driver
> >> program (which was originally authored in 2011 - entirely using CSR
> >> original source code) are insignificant — for example, just adding or
> >> editing a few lines of code among hundreds or thousands (or more)
> >> lines of code, those changes are unlikely to be seen as a "derivative
> >> work" that would be the subject of independent copyright protection
> >> (for the changed portion) as of the year in which those changes were
> >> made.  If significant changes were made to the source code, such that
> >> new functionality were added, or a similar upgrade (for efficiency,
> >> etc.), or something along those lines — even if the changes only
> >> amounted to 5 or 10% of the code total — that could be deemed a
> >> derivative work that would be able to have its own copyright notice in
> >> the year in which the changes were created/authored.  There is no hard
> >> and fast rule on the percentage.
> >>
> >> for the general guideline that if one-third or more of the program’s
> >> source code has been updated/changed/added, then an updated year can
> >> be set forth in the copyright notice.  That guideline, while useful as
> >> a minor rule of thumb, is not required by law or anything else to my
> >> knowledge — the crux of the issue is really whether the changes amount
> >> to a derivative work."
> >
> > That's an interesting statement, but not what my lawyer has advised me
> > to abide by.
> >
> >> and after talking with the lawyer, if a new year is added in copyright
> >> notice, it is for protecting the changes in 2013. so "extend the
> >> copyright year" should be wrong. it is not extending the exiting
> >> copyright, it is a new year to protect the new codes changed in the
> >> year.
> >
> > But nothing was changed in your patch in the "code" section, right?
> 
> Greg, i think the changes in 2013 are important and we should have
> copyright protection for it.

But you already have that, there's no need to just add a line to a file
to somehow get that in the legal sense.  You already have the copyright
in that year, on that file, without the "mark" as the "mark" doesn't
mean anything anymore (and hasn't for about 20+ years from what I have
been told.)

And your lawyer should know that, if not, I suggest getting a new lawyer :)

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html