[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[microblaze-uclinux] Re: [PATCH 45/56] microblaze_v2: headers simple files - empty or redirect to asm-generic
- To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [microblaze-uclinux] Re: [PATCH 45/56] microblaze_v2: headers simple files - empty or redirect to asm-generic
- From: Michal Simek <monstr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 20:46:27 +0200
- Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, John Williams <john.williams@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, stephen.neuendorffer@xxxxxxxxxx, John.Linn@xxxxxxxxxx, matthew@xxxxxx, will.newton@xxxxxxxxx, drepper@xxxxxxxxxx, microblaze-uclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <200805061821.14391.arnd@xxxxxxxx>
- References: <1209901305-6404-1-git-send-email-monstr@xxxxxxxxx> <20080507004702.d516a727.sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <482077FE.7080201@xxxxxxxxx> <200805061821.14391.arnd@xxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: microblaze-uclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-microblaze-uclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Thunderbird 220.127.116.11 (Windows/20080421)
I removed almost all. :-)
> On Tuesday 06 May 2008, Michal Simek wrote:
>>> Absolutely, but is it really necessary to have 14-16 lines of comment
>>> (including a copyright notice) for a file whose single real line is just
>>> to include another file? i.e. reduce all these to 1 line files.
>> Can I do it? I think every file need license.
> If you want a good answer on that, ask your lawyer. In general, every file
> comes with a 'license' (GPLv2) and 'copyright' (you or the person you copied
> from) even if you don't put either statement in the file. Files smaller than
> some 10 lines are usually not considered to be covered by copyright, even
> if you have the statement in there.
> Most files nowadays are written by large corporations that have strict rules
> about what you must put in there to protect their intellectual property.
> It's certainly safe to leave out the file names from the comments, they don't
> add any value at all.
> Similarly, you should easily be able to leave out the license statement,
> unless you are under a contract that forces you to leave them present.
> Most people here will be happier if you remove the license statements.
> The most tricky one part is the copyright statement ("Copyright 2012
> Big Corporation of America"), which you strictly speaking should never
> remove from a file unless you have permission from the copyright holder.
> Many of your files in your patch set are obviously copies of existing
> kernel files, with the original copyright notice replaced with "Atmark
> Techno, inc.". You can draw your own conclusions from that ;-)
> Obviously, I am not a lawyer, so don't consider this as legal advice.
> I really hope this doesn't turn into a flamewar, as discussions on
> intellectual property sometimes do.
> Arnd <><
microblaze-uclinux mailing list
Project Home Page : http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~jwilliams/mblaze-uclinux
Mailing List Archive : http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~listarch/microblaze-uclinux/