From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoffer Dall Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/45] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic-new: Add acccessor to new struct vgic_irq instance Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 20:42:37 +0200 Message-ID: <20160426184237.GA25138@cbox> References: <1460740316-8755-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <1460740316-8755-6-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <20160425161525.b4hqjrrharfdsdgo@hawk.localdomain> <20160425194901.GM16590@cbox> <571F250A.2040507@arm.com> <20160426094433.z5y44u5eb3ovkfb6@hawk.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Marc Zyngier , Andre Przywara , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org To: Andrew Jones Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160426094433.z5y44u5eb3ovkfb6@hawk.localdomain> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:44:33AM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 09:21:30AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On 25/04/16 20:49, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 06:15:25PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > > >> Hi Andre, > > >> > > >> I'm just randomly jumping in here because I spotted a typo in $SUBJECT. > > >> 'accessor' has too many c's. Also, just curious, but if the author is > > >> from Linaro (hi Christoffer), then why do the new files this patch adds > > >> have ARM copyrights? > > >> > > > > > > We just decided to let ARM deal with asserting the license since we all > > > collaborated on it, but others also suggested that we should let ARM and > > > Linaro share the license. > > > > I personally have no objections to having both ARM and Linaro sharing > > the copyright, but I just don't know how this works in practice (and > > asking any legal department is a sure recipe to delay these patches for > > an extra 6 months, give or take a few years). > > > > In the end, all I care about is the licence under which the code is > > released. > > > > Thanks, my curiosity is satisfied. I fully agree that if it's not easy > to share a collaborated file, then it's just a matter of flipping a coin, > or defaulting to whichever has the majority. > I also only care about the license under which it is released. I opted for defaulting to the company that is most set up to pursue any potential infringement on the copyright. -Christoffer