> On May 8, 2018, at 2:57 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > IIRC "LFC191: Compliance Basics for Developers" was pretty clear that > the copyright line should stay. > If so, vmware_pack_end.h should also have it's copyright line reinstated.
That's an interesting argument to have. Two points from my side a) VMware is the one removing its own copyright - I haven't seen any suggestion that that's not acceptable b) it is rather questionable if a single instruction is even copyrightable :-) > Mildly related: > This patch adds the one-line license identifier and removes the bulky > license text. For those licenses where that is allowable (GPL-2.0 or GPL-2.0+) > While a later patch, does the former and not the latter. Any reason > why they're not consistent? Yes, since MIT is a template license you can't remove it without making it impossible to follow the compliance requirements (the copyright becomes part of the license text). /D _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
