Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757186AbaDHQVX (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Apr 2014 12:21:23 -0400 Received: from lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk ([81.2.110.251]:36071 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756643AbaDHQVV (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Apr 2014 12:21:21 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:19:29 +0100 From: One Thousand Gnomes To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Christopher Covington , Stephen Boyd , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, Mark Rutland , Russell King , Courtney Cavin Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] ARM: Add Krait L2 register accessor functions Message-ID: <20140408171929.68f328a9@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20140408151056.GH30077@pd.tnic> References: <1396641450-12854-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <1396641450-12854-3-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <20140407201838.GC20822@pd.tnic> <20140407215649.GH9985@codeaurora.org> <20140408064328.GB30077@pd.tnic> <534406BD.8000702@codeaurora.org> <20140408151056.GH30077@pd.tnic> Organization: Intel Corporation X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:10:56 +0200 Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:25:01AM -0400, Christopher Covington wrote: > > As I understand it, the license authors. They find it important to maintain > > clarity even when files get copied into other projects. > > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html > > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoticeInSourceFile > > Right, so what is wrong with stating the same thing in two lines: > > "Copyright (c) 2011-2013, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved. > > This file is licensed under GNU GPLv2. See COPYING for full license text. The COPYING file may not be present. There may be cases where the absence of the warranty statement in the header is problematic etc etc. Corporate legals have their own policies on this and there is no point fighting them because - they are the ones qualified to make the decision - the corporate legal angle is often "do this or don't release it" - we have huge numbers of files using that same no warranty in every file, and major companies who specify it must be present in their code releases Including the without warranty is standard practice at a lot of companies. It's not even wasting space - it'll compress beautifully as there are already lots of similar headers all over the tree. Alan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/