[U-Boot] [PATCH 13/60] ARM: tegra: sort some board file include directives

Tom Rini
2016-04-25T23:22:26Z

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:59:39PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Stephen,
>
> In message <571E75E2.6020008@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
> >
> > >> /*
> > >> * (C) Copyright 2013
> > >> * Avionic Design GmbH <www.avionic-design.de>
> > >> + * Copyright (c) 2016, NVIDIA CORPORATION. All rights reserved.
> > >> *
> > >> * SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > >> */
> > >>
> > >> #include <common.h>
> > >> #include <dm.h>
> > >> +#include <i2c.h>
> > >> +#include <asm/gpio.h>
> > >> #include <asm/arch/pinmux.h>
> > >> #include <asm/arch/gp_padctrl.h>
> > >> #include <asm/arch/gpio.h>
> > >> -#include <asm/gpio.h>
> > >> #include "pinmux-config-tamonten-ng.h"
> > >> -#include <i2c.h>
> > >>
> > >> #define PMU_I2C_ADDRESS 0x2D
> > >
> > > Do you really think that moving around two lines of code is a big
> > > enough creative achievement to justify adding a copyright note on it?
> >
> > My understanding is yes; I edited the file in a non-trival way and so
> > NVIDIA's copyright applies to those portions. I'd consider whitespace or
> > spelling fixes to be trivial, but not much else. I believe there is
> > creative achievement in cleaning up the code-base this way.
>
> Well, do you _really_ mean that moving two ines of code a few lines up
> is a non-trivial change? Sorry, but I strongly disagree here.

I want to echo my agreement on this point. Re-ordering includes does
not rise to the level of adding copyright/author/etc lines. This is not
the old days before various OSS projects used some sort of SCM and the
only way you could show people you did X was to have your name
somewhere.

Lawyers can argue, but projects have guidelines. I mean heck, I've see
you remind people to fix the include order in new patches. Do they need
to add an NVIDIA copyright notice too? No, of course not. Now, if your
legal department is going to say that every change you make must include
a new copyright notice, I'll be very sad and have to ask you to limit
those kind of small clean-ups to places that already have a notice on
them for NVIDIA.

> This is not any change where you can claim any copyright for.
>
> > FWIW, the purpose is to create a cleaner separate between the core Tegra
> > SoC support code and board/driver code, to reduce their current rather
> > tight coupling. The copyright changes are just correct application of
> > the process of editing files; something I admit we/I've been a bit lax
> > about in the past.

I applaud re-organizing the code and making sure customer boards
continue to work. But by that same token I do not know how Siemens
would feel if I added TI notices to their platforms back when I was at
TI and cleaning up and working on the SoC side of things. So it's not
just NVIDIA legal and community folks that you need to consider here.

> s/correct/aggressive/
>
> > > This seems not fair to me, and I would like to ask you to rework this
> > > whole patch set and be a little less aggressive in copyright claims.
> >
> > I don't see what's unfair either way. As far as I'm concerned, the
> > copyright notices are simply due to my following the process I must
> > follow. I don't believe the presence of NVIDIA's copyright notices takes
> > anything away from anyone else, and as I mentioned above, they seem
> > valid to me.

I know company lawyers come up with various policies and some are more
restrictive than others. Anything about the exact guidelines you can
share would be appreciated.

--
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20160425/6b8a85b5/attachment.sig>