Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] fpga: dfl: Move the DFH definitions

[Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>]

Hi Matthew,

On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 5:40 PM <matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 12:04:23PM -0700, matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com wrote:
> >> --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl.h
> >> +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl.h
> >> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
> >>  /*
> >>   * Driver Header File for FPGA Device Feature List (DFL) Support
> >>   *
> >> - * Copyright (C) 2017-2018 Intel Corporation, Inc.
> >> + * Copyright (C) 2017-2022 Intel Corporation, Inc.
> >
> > I'm all for updated proper copyright dates, but in a patch that
> > _removes_ text from a file does not seem like the proper place for that,
> > right?  Please discuss with your corporate lawyers as to how to do this
> > properly and when to do it.

> I discussed how and when to do this properly with my corporate lawyers and
> confirmed this submission is consistent with their guidelines.
>
> You do raise an interesting point, though.  If you think this approach is
> improper, we should probably discuss it, including whether this
> restriction is already a condition for contributions or whether it should
> be.  It wouldn't be the first difference of opinion on the finer points of
> copyright law.

So each time code is removed from a file, its copyright year should
be updated? Eventually, we may end up with an empty file which
is copyrighted <this_year>? Do you think that makes sense?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds