linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] fpga: dfl: Move the DFH definitions

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]

Date:   Sun, 11 Sep 2022 08:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:   matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
cc:     hao.wu@...el.com, yilun.xu@...el.com, russell.h.weight@...el.com,
        basheer.ahmed.muddebihal@...el.com, trix@...hat.com,
        mdf@...nel.org, linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tianfei.zhang@...el.com, corbet@....net,
        linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, jirislaby@...nel.org,
        geert+renesas@...der.be, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
        niklas.soderlund+renesas@...natech.se, phil.edworthy@...esas.com,
        macro@...am.me.uk, johan@...nel.org, lukas@...ner.de,
        Basheer Ahmed Muddebihal 
        <basheer.ahmed.muddebihal@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] fpga: dfl: Move the DFH definitions



On Wed, 7 Sep 2022, Greg KH wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 12:04:23PM -0700, matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl.h
>> +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl.h
>> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>>  /*
>>   * Driver Header File for FPGA Device Feature List (DFL) Support
>>   *
>> - * Copyright (C) 2017-2018 Intel Corporation, Inc.
>> + * Copyright (C) 2017-2022 Intel Corporation, Inc.
>
> I'm all for updated proper copyright dates, but in a patch that
> _removes_ text from a file does not seem like the proper place for that,
> right?  Please discuss with your corporate lawyers as to how to do this
> properly and when to do it.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>

Hi Greg,
I discussed how and when to do this properly with my corporate lawyers and 
confirmed this submission is consistent with their guidelines.

You do raise an interesting point, though.  If you think this approach is 
improper, we should probably discuss it, including whether this 
restriction is already a condition for contributions or whether it should 
be.  It wouldn't be the first difference of opinion on the finer points of 
copyright law.

Best Regards,

Matthew Gerlach