Hi,

The common TFM source code is mainly developed by ARM & Linaro, so it should be no issue here.

The source code in the chip vendors “port” folder can get an exception to avoid the mentioned conflict.

Thanks,

Andrej

From: David Hu <David.Hu@arm.com>
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 3:43 AM
To: Andrej Butok <andrey.butok@nxp.com>; Ken Liu <Ken.Liu@arm.com>; tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: RE: TF-M copyright year update

Hi,

Members/organizations in TF-M community may have diverse policies regarding this copyright format.

It might be more flexible to at first make this copyright change optional as Anton suggests.

If contributors are required to follow current copyright format, it is still accepted.

Best regards,

Hu Ziji

From: Andrej Butok via TF-M <tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 10:19 PM
To: Ken Liu <Ken.Liu@arm.com>; tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: [TF-M] Re: TF-M copyright year update

Hi,

OK. Let’s send the permission request to all contributors.

Ideally, to have the most clean approach used by MbedTLS:

*  Copyright The <project name> Contributors

*  SPDX-License-Identifier: <License name>

Thanks,

Andrej

From: Ken Liu via TF-M <tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 4:32 AM
To: tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: [TF-M] Re: TF-M copyright year update

One question: is mixed style allowed, in case some copyright holders do not reply in time?

And one proposal: Let’s gather the permission (or willingness) first, maybe all stakeholders would response quickly? Then we can do the next step.

/Ken

From: Anton Komlev via TF-M <tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 11:57 PM
To: tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: [TF-M] TF-M copyright year update

Hi,

This is a continue of discussion started on today’s forum on the value of copyright year update on every change.

I proposed to let such update being optional and do not track it in review.

There was no objection during forum but an alternative proposal to adopt the Linux Foundation guidance, where all authors and contributors are listed in a separate while source and documentation are free from it. For example MbedTLS doing that way, although it has side effects:

• Need to modify all files in 6 repositories.
• Gather permission from all copyright holders.

Looking for more opinions on the topic.

Thanks,

Anton