On 04/25/2016 05:05 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 04:43:34PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/25/2016 04:37 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:52:53PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Stephen Warren,
In message 571E733A.1060208@wwwdotorg.org you wrote:
[snip]
Unfortunately we've (NVIDIA at least) been a little lax making sure the NVIDIA copyright messages are kept up-to-date when editing files, hence why this series had to change a lot of them for the first time recently. If we went back and re-wrote all of git history paying strict attention to the copyright notice dates and formatting, I imagine the set of copyright-related changes in this series would be much smaller.
I'm quoting Wolfgang's email here, but, yes, keeping the copyright notices correct is important. Now, what do you mean by would be smaller?
Personally I want to spend my time coding rather than dealing with licensing. As such, it's easy to forget to update the dates in copyright notices when changing files, or to put the correct information into new files when creating new ones (often by just cutting/pasting some other file with similar issues). If we had done that 100% correctly in every commit across history, my inclination is that more files would already have an NVIDIA copyright message, and/or already have 2016 in the date, and hence this series wouldn't include an edit to those messages since they'd already be up-to-date. Still, I have no searched all history to confirm that; it's just my gut instinct.
Right, OK. So you're saying you may, in some cases, be adding 2016 to files you haven't touched this year yet?
Yes, I'm sure there's a mix.