linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/9 v2] usb: usb251xb: Use GPIO descriptor consumer interface

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170922160520.GA1310@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Sep 2017 18:05:20 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
Cc:     richard.leitner@...data.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, Sergey.Semin@...latforms.ru,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9 v2] usb: usb251xb: Use GPIO descriptor consumer
 interface

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 06:26:54PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 05:07:14PM +0200, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 05:51:29PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:23:38AM +0200, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 01:42:20PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/misc/usb251xb.c b/drivers/usb/misc/usb251xb.c
> > > > > index 71994b883..c2dd9742f 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/usb/misc/usb251xb.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/misc/usb251xb.c
> > > > > @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
> > > > >   * Configuration via SMBus.
> > > > >   *
> > > > >   * Copyright (c) 2017 SKIDATA AG
> > > > > + * Copyright (c) 2017 T-platforms
> > > > 
> > > > Again, no, please consult with your corporate lawyers why this isn't ok.
> > > > 
> > > > greg k-h
> > > 
> > > I still can't see why this isn't right. We submitted the patchset. It is not
> > > that big and still it isn't just two lines. As I've seen all over the kernel, It is
> > > a common practice to have multiple copyrights in kernel files. We are not claiming
> > > the copyright to the whole file, but to the contribution only. I got a consent to
> > > contribute when I was employed by the company. What's wrong with that? Shall I
> > > send the patchset from my corporate e-mail then?
> > 
> > Well, yes, I need some way to properly identify that this corporation
> > did do the changes.  I said that before, I don't know why you ignored
> > that.
> > 
> > And yes, multiple copyrights are just fine, but again, please talk to
> > your corporate lawyer about why these changes don't seem to warrant that
> > "mark".  If they do think that they do warrant that, great, I will be
> > glad to discuss that with them, off-list if needed.
> > 
> > For even more fun, try discussing with your lawyers about why copyright
> > marks like this don't even mean anything anymore, and haven't for 20+
> > years now (can't remember the actual date...)  But that's a different
> > topic, and one not really relevant here.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> Alright then. We'll remove the Copyright mark and I'll resend the patchset
> from my corporate e-mail. Hope it will solve this issue.
> Could you review the rest of the patchset?

I'll wait for the resend, as Rob already pointed out issues, so it is
long-gone from my patchqueue.

thanks,

greg k-h