On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 06:19:20PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Sun, Jul 20, 2025 at 02:18:19PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 20/07/2025 05:46, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 06:28:15PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > >> On 16/07/2025 17:20, Pankaj Patil wrote: > > > [..] > > >>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-glymur.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-glymur.c > > >>> new file mode 100644 > > >>> index 000000000000..a1a6da62ed35 > > >>> --- /dev/null > > >>> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-glymur.c > > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,8623 @@ > > >>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only > > >>> +/* > > >>> + * Copyright (c) Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. and/or its subsidiaries. > > >> > > >> Missing date. > > >> > > > > > > Per updated company guidelines we don't want a year here. Please let us > > > know if you have any concerns with this. > > > > > I remember the guidelines and they were about publishing your code, not > > about contributing to open-source projects. And whatever you have > > internally does not cover us at all. You can have internal guideline > > saying you need to buy me a beer or I need to buy you a beer. Does not > > matter. > > > > That above copyright statement without date does not adhere to expected > > format. Explanation how this should be written: > > > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.en.html#copyright-notice > > > > The GPL-2.0 license in the kernel also uses date: > > > > "Copyright (C) <year> <name of author> " > > > > There is no option without date in the license or GPL faq. I am not a > > lawyer, so no clue whether this is what we want, but I also should not > > be my task to figure out whether different copyright statement is okay > > or not. It's your burden. > > > > Or drop the Copyright statement complete to avoid any questions. > > Note, we don't take legal advice from the FSF :) > > That being said, any/none of the above is just fine, there's not even a > requirement for a copyright line at all. It's up to the author of the > file as to the format for what they want to do in the end, none of it > matters to the actual existance of the copyright itself, which is > implicit with or without a copyright line. > Thank you for your guidance, Greg. Then we choose to follow the format used in this patch, without the year, going forward. Thank you, Bjorn > thanks, > > greg "I talk to too many lawyers" k-h
