From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9 v2] usb: usb251xb: Use GPIO descriptor consumer interface Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 18:05:20 +0200 Message-ID: <20170922160520.GA1310@kroah.com> References: <20170915233113.17855-1-fancer.lancer@gmail.com> <20170916104220.3742-1-fancer.lancer@gmail.com> <20170916104220.3742-10-fancer.lancer@gmail.com> <20170921082338.GA30669@kroah.com> <20170921145129.GA25888@mobilestation> <20170921150714.GA7791@kroah.com> <20170922152654.GA10152@mobilestation> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170922152654.GA10152@mobilestation> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Serge Semin Cc: richard.leitner@skidata.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, Sergey.Semin@t-platforms.ru, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 06:26:54PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 05:07:14PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 05:51:29PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:23:38AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 01:42:20PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/misc/usb251xb.c b/drivers/usb/misc/usb251xb.c > > > > > index 71994b883..c2dd9742f 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/usb/misc/usb251xb.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/misc/usb251xb.c > > > > > @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ > > > > > * Configuration via SMBus. > > > > > * > > > > > * Copyright (c) 2017 SKIDATA AG > > > > > + * Copyright (c) 2017 T-platforms > > > > > > > > Again, no, please consult with your corporate lawyers why this isn't ok. > > > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > I still can't see why this isn't right. We submitted the patchset. It is not > > > that big and still it isn't just two lines. As I've seen all over the kernel, It is > > > a common practice to have multiple copyrights in kernel files. We are not claiming > > > the copyright to the whole file, but to the contribution only. I got a consent to > > > contribute when I was employed by the company. What's wrong with that? Shall I > > > send the patchset from my corporate e-mail then? > > > > Well, yes, I need some way to properly identify that this corporation > > did do the changes. I said that before, I don't know why you ignored > > that. > > > > And yes, multiple copyrights are just fine, but again, please talk to > > your corporate lawyer about why these changes don't seem to warrant that > > "mark". If they do think that they do warrant that, great, I will be > > glad to discuss that with them, off-list if needed. > > > > For even more fun, try discussing with your lawyers about why copyright > > marks like this don't even mean anything anymore, and haven't for 20+ > > years now (can't remember the actual date...) But that's a different > > topic, and one not really relevant here. > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > Alright then. We'll remove the Copyright mark and I'll resend the patchset > from my corporate e-mail. Hope it will solve this issue. > Could you review the rest of the patchset? I'll wait for the resend, as Rob already pointed out issues, so it is long-gone from my patchqueue. thanks, greg k-h