On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 06:00:44PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 13/08/2025 17:43, Jeff Johnson wrote: > > On 8/12/2025 10:52 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 12/08/2025 19:09, Kiran Venkatappa wrote: > >>> +} > >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/wmi_wifi7.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/wmi_wifi7.h > >>> new file mode 100644 > >>> index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1514e3e8d4cb65d3d95d95a1c1593a7b66abcf58 > >>> --- /dev/null > >>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/wmi_wifi7.h > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ > >>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause-Clear */ > >>> +/* > >>> + * Copyright (c) 2018-2021 The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved. > >>> + * Copyright (c) Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. and/or its subsidiaries. > >> > >> Don't rewrite the copyrights. Original file had different one. GPL FAQ > >> also EXPLICITLY asks for date in copyrights and does not allow one > >> without the date. > >> > >> (and before you bring internal qcom regulations, let me remind that they > >> do not matter. we discussed this in other thread) > > > > Wi-Fi team wasn't party to the other thread, and this series was following the > > legal guidance we were given. I'm circling with the core kernel team and the > > legal team to make sure your concerns are resolved. > > +Cc Greg, Oops, I just responded to this issue elsewhere. > Please follow legal guidance expressed in: > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.en.html#copyright-notice > > and the license you agreed by signing of the patch: > LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0: > > "Copyright (C) <year> <name of author> " > ... > "... publish on each copy an appropriate > copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty;" Nope, we do NOT force the FSF's legal intrepretation of copyright marks on any company at all. It's up to the copyright holders themselves for how they wish to mark the copyright, if at all. And really, Qualcomm is a company that is run by lawyers, they know what they want to do for whatever reason that might be... > Just to remind - you as author sign off your patch, not your legal team. Agreed, but in some cases, I have forced legal teams to sign off on patches, so don't rule that out :) thanks, greg k-h
