From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial: sirf: update copyright years to 2014 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:27:17 +0800 Message-ID: References: <1392214124-3427-1-git-send-email-21cnbao@gmail.com> <20140212141931.GA7688@kroah.com> <20140212143744.GA10095@kroah.com> <20140212161230.GA22431@kroah.com> <20140212163810.GA22377@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f49.google.com ([209.85.160.49]:41686 "EHLO mail-pb0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750863AbaBMC1i (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:27:38 -0500 Received: by mail-pb0-f49.google.com with SMTP id up15so10022396pbc.8 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:27:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140212163810.GA22377@kroah.com> Sender: linux-serial-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org To: Greg KH Cc: "linux-serial@vger.kernel.org" , DL-SHA-WorkGroupLinux , Barry Song 2014-02-13 0:38 GMT+08:00 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, i am inviting our lawyer Cherrie into this, as she is maybe busy, so we might wait some time. > greg k-h -barry