On 8/13/2025 9:24 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > 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 for the clarification, Greg. Just for reference, the guidance we received follows. In that guidance: - LF means Linux Foundation, the entity to which Qualcomm assigned copyright when open source development was being done as Code Aurora Forum (though December 2021) - QuIC means Qualcomm Innovation Center, the open source entity used from December 2021 until March 2025. - QTI means Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., the entity now being used for open source contributions. Guidance: 1. Should existing QuIC copyright be left alone or absorbed into the added QTI copyright text? Yes, all QuIC copyright years should be absorbed. Replace the QuIC copyrights with the QTI copyright. Leave LF and other 3rd party copyrights alone. 2. When we are creating new file in open source, if it is copied/derived from existing QUIC authored open source file, should we retain the QUIC markings? No, the QuIC copyright years should be absorbed into the year-less QTI copyright. 3. Is there any use case where we MUST keep the QuIC copyright? No, all projects can move to using QTI copyright. /jeff
