On Wed, 10 Apr 2024, Rob Herring wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 08:29:07AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 08/04/2024 22:34, matthew.gerlach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/altr,pcie-root-port.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/altr,pcie-root-port.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..999dcda05f55
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/altr,pcie-root-port.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
+# Copyright (C) 2024, Intel Corporation
This is derivative of previous work, which is easily visible by doing
the same mistakes in DTS as they were before.
This is definitely derivative of previous work, and I want to fix the
DTS mistakes too.
You now added fresh copyrights ignoring all previous work, even though
you copied it. I don't agree.
If you want to ignore previous copyrights, then at least don't copy
existing code... although even that would not be sufficient.
Ignoring previous copyrights was not my intent. There is no copyright
statement in the original text version of the device tree bindings. Should
that lack of copyright statement carry forward?
All the authors are copyright holders automatically, at least in some or
maybe most jurisdictions. You do not need to add copyright label for
material to be copyrighted. That's why you are not allowed to relicense
the work for example, without other authors' agreement.
The only thing I see as missing is some years. All the authors were
Altera which is now Intel, so Intel is the sole copyright holder.
Whether is says 2015 contributions were Altera or Intel is probably
immaterial. There were also contributions by Google (Bjorn), but those
were purely editorial.
Yes, Altera is now Intel who now owns the copyrights. At some point the
future this might change as Intel spins off Altera. So given the state
now, should the copyright line be as follows?
# Copyright (C) 2015, 2019, 2024, Intel Corporation
Matthew
Rob
