Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1537275915.git.yu.c.chen@intel.com> <020db877db6a8d39808dfaef2a5162f541f0853b.1537275915.git.yu.c.chen@intel.com>
 <CAJZ5v0jvB5zF-LqYsB1ughaZbRhZW1RjVSvY87q_W_pNkmqBeQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180919103405.GA19621@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180919103405.GA19621@gmail.com>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 19 Sep 2018 12:36:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hq_qawFjpCsYvkOF=OotY+a2AuNc7eTR8RhaLyNPMd-w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12][RFC v3] x86, hibernate: Extract the common code of
 64/32 bit system
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        "Chen, Yu C" <yu.c.chen@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
        kookoo.gu@intel.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:34 PM Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>
> * Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > > index 000000000000..fbde8f0e8fe0
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/power/hibernate.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,249 @@
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > +/*
> > > + * Hibernation support for x86
> > > + *
> > > + * Copyright (c) 2007 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > > + * Copyright (c) 2002 Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
> > > + * Copyright (c) 2001 Patrick Mochel <mochel@osdl.org>
> >
> > I don't think this "copyright" information has any legal bearing any
> > more at this point.
>
> I think that's wrong in general, and it's routine for corporate legal
> departments to insist on specific boilerplate copyright notices when
> OSS code is contributed.
>
> Copying code and then removing copyright notices is frowned upon
> independently as well.
>
> While you can probably talk for your own copyright notice, I'm not sure
> it's true of the two other historic copyright notices that were copied.
>
> So I think it's best practice to preserve all copyright notices as-is.

OK, let's retain them, then.

Thanks,
Rafael