Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: s/SeongJae/SJ/

[SJ Park <sj@kernel.org>]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 10:59:25 +0100 Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 11:45:03AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> > On 6/29/26 11:37, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 11:25:52AM +0200, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Jun 29 2026, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> [...]
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Just curious, why do you drop the author and copyright information? (can you
> > >>> even drop the Amazon copyright note?)
> > >>
> > >> Off topic, but I am curious how these copyright notices are supposed to
> > >> work in the first place. From what I have seen, the person who creates
> > >> the file normally adds one for themselves/their employer. But then other
> > >> contributors who make small/medium changes don't add theirs, even though
> > >> they should hold the copyright for the code they added. Bigger refactors>> sometimes add a notice but that isn't done consistently either.
> >
> > Yes, I saw it on bigger stuff as well, but not on small stuff, really.
> >
> > >>
> > >> So do these notices even hold any value? They certainly don't list all
> > >> the entities who hold the copyright to the code in the file. Only git
> > >> log can tell you that. Is there even any point in adding them?
> > >
> > > It strikes me as a rather loose convention.
> > >
> > > I am not a lawyer, but I would say that individual and corporate ownership of
> > > code are implied by S-o-b, not by comments in files.
> >
> > Guess it gets interesting once the SOB does not carry that information. Also,
> > some people might work at company X (and send code from company mail address)
> > but may hold all copyright by themselves.
> >
> > So even the git log cannot tell that story.
> >
> > But in any case, I would expect a comment about that in the patch description :)
> 
> Right yeah that'd be nice agreed :)

Thank you for all the comments.  I intentionally removed those notes, becuase a
better information could be found from the git history (I was using amazon
corporate email when I initially sent the patch) and seems the notes will only
be outdated and may confuse people.  I'm not familiar with the law, though.
But again, thanks to git, I think I could revert necessary parts if anyone
claims.

And I agree this intentions is better to be clearly explained.  I will send v2
with the explanation.


Thanks,
SJ

[...]