Re: [PATCH v19 01/21] s390x/cpu topology: add s390 specifics to CPU topology

[Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>]

On 4/18/23 17:57, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 02:26:05PM +0200, Pierre Morel wrote:
>> On 4/4/23 09:03, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
>>> On 4/3/23 18:28, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h
>>>> b/include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000000..83f31604cc
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * CPU Topology
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Copyright IBM Corp. 2022
>>> Shouldn't we have some range : 2022-2023 ?
>> There was a discussion on this in the first spins, I think to remember that
>> Nina wanted 22 and Thomas 23,
>>
>> now we have a third opinion :) .
>>
>> I must say that all three have their reasons and I take what the majority
>> wants.
>>
>> A vote?
> Whether or not to include a single year, or range of years in
> the copyright statement is ultimately a policy decision for the
> copyright holder to take (IBM in this case I presume), and not
> subject to community vote/preferences.
>
> I will note that some (possibly even many) organizations consider
> the year to be largely redundant and devoid of legal benefit, so
> are happy with basically any usage of dates (first year, most recent
> year, a range of years, or none at all). With this in mind, QEMU is
> willing to accept any usage wrt dates in the copyright statement.
>
> It is possible that IBM have a specific policy their employees are
> expected to follow. If so, follow that.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel


OK, thanks,

Regards,

Pierre