linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 45/56] microblaze_v2: headers simple files

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]

Message-ID: <4821F903.5070503@seznam.cz>
Date:	Wed, 07 May 2008 20:46:27 +0200
From:	Michal Simek <monstr@...nam.cz>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	John Williams <john.williams@...alogix.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	stephen.neuendorffer@...inx.com, John.Linn@...inx.com,
	matthew@....cx, will.newton@...il.com, drepper@...hat.com,
	microblaze-uclinux@...e.uq.edu.au, grant.likely@...retlab.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH 45/56] microblaze_v2: headers simple files - empty or
 redirect to asm-generic

Hi All

I removed almost all. :-)

M

> 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 <><
> 
> 
--
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/