----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michel Dänzer" <michel@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Timothy Pearson" <tpearson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Harry Wentland" <hwentlan@xxxxxxx> > Cc: "Zhan Liu" <Zhan.Liu@xxxxxxx>, "amd-gfx" <amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 10:12:42 AM > Subject: Re: amdgpu: Enable full DCN support on POWER > On 2019-12-06 12:34 a.m., Timothy Pearson wrote: >>> From: "Harry Wentland" <hwentlan@xxxxxxx> On 2019-12-05 6:02 p.m., >>> Liu, Zhan wrote: >>>>> From: amd-gfx <amd-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf >>>>> Of Timothy Pearson >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/Makefile >>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/Makefile index >>>>> a160512a2f04..3e026a969386 100644 --- >>>>> a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/Makefile +++ >>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/Makefile @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ # # >>>>> Copyright 2017 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. +# Copyright 2019 >>>>> Raptor Engineering, LLC >>>> >>>> NAK. >>>> >>>> IANAL, but I don't think you can add your company's name by >>>> modifying part of the code. The copyright notice shows the >>>> authors of the original work. >>>> >>>> When modifying the code, you are required to agree with that >>>> copyright notice. That's the purpose of that copyright notice >>>> piece. > > Where did you get that from? Adding a copyright line like this to files > containing code to which one holds the copyright is standard practice. > > >>> I always thought these copyright notices are nearly meaningless. >>> >>> That said, this patch doesn't have any change in this file. I >>> don't think it warrants an additional copyright notice. >>> >>> Harry >> >> Agreed -- looks like that snuck in with the other changes. I can >> back this one out, however in general regardless of the notice having >> any actual legal meaning (the GIT commit history has the actual legal >> teeth from what I understand as it establishes shared ownership), our >> general policy per recommendations is to add the copyright line. It >> helps anyone looking at the file know at a glance that there is more >> than one corporate author, and therefore e.g. the only terms it can >> be used on without a complex multi-party license renegotiation is (in >> this case) the GPL v2. > > Did you read the licence under the copyright line you added? :) Nope, I didn't, at least not right before sending that reply -- I didn't have a copy of the file up on that device , and was wildly guessing based on the overall kernel distribution license. > Or are you saying that your patch is intended to be available under the > GPL only? I'm afraid that would be a problem. No, there's no problem here with the existing license. Updated version of the patch with a few technical issues fixed should be coming later today / tomorrow (depending on how quickly I can get an ACK/NACK on functionality from the person that has access to the Navi card). > > -- > Earthling Michel Dänzer | https://redhat.com > Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer > _______________________________________________ > amd-gfx mailing list > amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
