2014-03-18 10:33 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:25:50AM +0800, Barry Song wrote: >> 2014-02-19 13:16 GMT+08:00 Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx>: >> > 2014-02-15 1:14 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:27:17AM +0800, Barry Song wrote: >> >>> 2014-02-13 0:38 GMT+08:00 Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> >>> > 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. >> >> >> >> In my research, it's become apparent that the copyright notice should >> >> just be removed entirely from the files, as they don't mean anything >> >> from a legal standpoint, so updating them shouldn't really be done >> >> either, as they don't mean anything. Although one could argue, if they >> >> don't mean anything, updating it shouldn't matter, but I don't think >> >> that the transitive is true here... >> >> >> >> It will be interesting to find out what your lawyer says about this. >> > >> > Greg, all your comments have been forwarded to our layer and counsel. >> > pls wait for some time :-) >> >> Greg, >> >> here i got some comments from the lawyer. >> " >> the reason that people want the copyright notice to include 2014 is to >> ensure that the copyrighted works have the longest possible life >> available under copyright protection. > > But just putting a number in a file does not have anything to do with > the copyright of the file itself, right? It can be a "hint", but a lot > of projects are doing away with these types of file "markings" entirely, > as it has been proven to not mean anything. > >> if the changes that have been made to CSR’s source code for the driver >> program (which was originally authored in 2011 - entirely using CSR >> original source code) are insignificant — for example, just adding or >> editing a few lines of code among hundreds or thousands (or more) >> lines of code, those changes are unlikely to be seen as a "derivative >> work" that would be the subject of independent copyright protection >> (for the changed portion) as of the year in which those changes were >> made. If significant changes were made to the source code, such that >> new functionality were added, or a similar upgrade (for efficiency, >> etc.), or something along those lines — even if the changes only >> amounted to 5 or 10% of the code total — that could be deemed a >> derivative work that would be able to have its own copyright notice in >> the year in which the changes were created/authored. There is no hard >> and fast rule on the percentage. >> >> for the general guideline that if one-third or more of the program’s >> source code has been updated/changed/added, then an updated year can >> be set forth in the copyright notice. That guideline, while useful as >> a minor rule of thumb, is not required by law or anything else to my >> knowledge — the crux of the issue is really whether the changes amount >> to a derivative work." > > That's an interesting statement, but not what my lawyer has advised me > to abide by. > >> and after talking with the lawyer, if a new year is added in copyright >> notice, it is for protecting the changes in 2013. so "extend the >> copyright year" should be wrong. it is not extending the exiting >> copyright, it is a new year to protect the new codes changed in the >> year. > > But nothing was changed in your patch in the "code" section, right? Greg, i think the changes in 2013 are important and we should have copyright protection for it. commit 5df831117b85a0 "serial: sirf: make the driver also support USP-based UART" we added support for a new port, USP port, it is a real code section. and commit 8316d04c42b94e "serial: sirf: add DMA support using dmaengine APIs" added DMA support, which is also code section changes. > > Anyway, care to resend this patch, based on the above information, and > we can try this again? > > thanks, > > greg k-h -barry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
