linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] sta2x11_vip: convert to videobuf2 and control framework

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 05 Dec 2012 13:24:20 +0100
From:	Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...il.com>
To:	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>
Cc:	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
	Pawel Osciak <pawel@...iak.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>,
	Giancarlo Asnaghi <giancarlo.asnaghi@...com>,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] sta2x11_vip: convert to videobuf2 and control framework

Thank you Mauro for the good explanation

> Yeah, there are many changes there that justifies adding you at its
> authorship, and that's ok. Also, anyone saying the size of your patch
> will recognize your and ST efforts to improve the driver.
> 
> However, as some parts of the code were preserved, dropping the old
> authors doesn't sound right (and can even be illegal, in the light
> of the GPL license). It would be ok, though, if you would be
> changing it to something like:
> 
> 	Copyright (c) 2010 by ...
> or
> 	Original driver from ...

Ok, I understand. I will write something like this.
 * Copyright (C) 2012       ST Microelectronics
 *      author: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...il.com>
 * Copyright (C) 2010       WindRiver Systems, Inc.
 *      authors: Andreas Kies <andreas.kies@...driver.com>
 *               Vlad Lungu <vlad.lungu@...driver.com>


> The only way of not preserving the original authors here were if you
> start from scratch, without looking at the original code (and you can
> somehow, be able to proof it), otherwise, the code will be fit as a
> "derivative work", in the light of GPL, and should be preserving the
> original authorship.
> 
> Something started from scratch like that will hardly be accepted upstream,
> as regressions will likely be introduced, and previously supported
> hardware/features may be lost in the process.

I understand
 
> Of course the original author can abdicate to his rights of keeping his
> name on it. Yet, even if he opt/accept to not keep his name explicitly
> there, his copyrights are preserved, with the help of the git history.
> 
> That's said, no single kernel developer/company has full copyrights on
> any part of the Kernel, as their code are based on someone else's work.
> For example, all Kernel drivers depend on drivers/base, with in turn,
> depends on memory management, generic helper functions, arch code, etc.

yeah I know :)

> So, IMHO, there's not much point on dropping authorship messages.

So the MODULE_AUTHOR will be Windriver forever until they drop authorship? 
Also if in the next future 0 windriver lines will be in the code?

(general talking, not about this driver)
If I do git blame on a driver with MODULE_AUTHOR("Mr. X"); but only the 
MODULE_AUTHOR line is from Mr X; there is not an automatically system which 
remove the MODULE_AUTHOR? Ok, probably it was the original author of the code 
and the comment header with the copyright history gives to Mr X all the 
honours, but there is nothing from him in the code. It is not better to remove 
MODULE_AUTHOR or replace it with who wrotes most of the code?
I know that this is not the best place to talk about this, just a little 
curiosity

-- 
Federico Vaga
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/