Re: [PATCH] serial: sirf: update copyright years to 2014

[Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>]

2014-02-13 0:38 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:26:35AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>> > Well, your 2012 change doesn't seem to be "significant" to warrent a
>> > normal copyright update, but the update is usually "less strict" than an
>> > original mark, so that might be ok, now that I review these closer.
>> >
>> > But I'd still prefer to get the opinion of your lawyer about this.
>>
>> Greg, thanks. i will ask csr lawyer to give some feedback if i can :-)
>>
>> i am not an expert of  copyright and i am really ignorant on it. in my
>> shallow understand, it seems it is difficult to evaluate what is
>> "significant" and what is not important as it highly depends on the
>> personal opinion? is this something like "there are a thousand Hamlets
>> in a thousand people's eyes"?
>
> It does "depend", but the "general" rule that most everyone follows, and
> what I have been advised to stick to, is "1/3 of the file is
> modified/added to" by a company/developer.  If that happens, then a
> copyright mark is allowed.  That has worked well over the many years of
> me having to deal with this, but the issue of "extending" the mark
> hasn't really been discussed, so I don't know if that same rule applies
> here or not.
>
> Feedback from your lawyer would be great to have on this, thanks.
>

Greg, i am inviting our lawyer Cherrie into this, as she is maybe
busy, so we might wait some time.


> greg k-h

-barry