On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:59:39PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Stephen,
In message 571E75E2.6020008@wwwdotorg.org you wrote:
/*
- (C) Copyright 2013
- Avionic Design GmbH <www.avionic-design.de>
- Copyright (c) 2016, NVIDIA CORPORATION. All rights reserved.
- SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
*/
#include <common.h> #include <dm.h>
+#include <i2c.h> +#include <asm/gpio.h> #include <asm/arch/pinmux.h> #include <asm/arch/gp_padctrl.h> #include <asm/arch/gpio.h> -#include <asm/gpio.h> #include "pinmux-config-tamonten-ng.h" -#include <i2c.h>
#define PMU_I2C_ADDRESS 0x2D
Do you really think that moving around two lines of code is a big enough creative achievement to justify adding a copyright note on it?
My understanding is yes; I edited the file in a non-trival way and so NVIDIA's copyright applies to those portions. I'd consider whitespace or spelling fixes to be trivial, but not much else. I believe there is creative achievement in cleaning up the code-base this way.
Well, do you _really_ mean that moving two ines of code a few lines up is a non-trivial change? Sorry, but I strongly disagree here.
I want to echo my agreement on this point. Re-ordering includes does not rise to the level of adding copyright/author/etc lines. This is not the old days before various OSS projects used some sort of SCM and the only way you could show people you did X was to have your name somewhere.
Lawyers can argue, but projects have guidelines. I mean heck, I've see you remind people to fix the include order in new patches. Do they need to add an NVIDIA copyright notice too? No, of course not. Now, if your legal department is going to say that every change you make must include a new copyright notice, I'll be very sad and have to ask you to limit those kind of small clean-ups to places that already have a notice on them for NVIDIA.
This is not any change where you can claim any copyright for.
FWIW, the purpose is to create a cleaner separate between the core Tegra SoC support code and board/driver code, to reduce their current rather tight coupling. The copyright changes are just correct application of the process of editing files; something I admit we/I've been a bit lax about in the past.
I applaud re-organizing the code and making sure customer boards continue to work. But by that same token I do not know how Siemens would feel if I added TI notices to their platforms back when I was at TI and cleaning up and working on the SoC side of things. So it's not just NVIDIA legal and community folks that you need to consider here.
s/correct/aggressive/
This seems not fair to me, and I would like to ask you to rework this whole patch set and be a little less aggressive in copyright claims.
I don't see what's unfair either way. As far as I'm concerned, the copyright notices are simply due to my following the process I must follow. I don't believe the presence of NVIDIA's copyright notices takes anything away from anyone else, and as I mentioned above, they seem valid to me.
I know company lawyers come up with various policies and some are more restrictive than others. Anything about the exact guidelines you can share would be appreciated.