linux-kernel - Re: [2.6 patch] binfmt_som.c: add MODULE

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080815214434.GB5773@colo.lackof.org>
Date:	Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:44:34 -0600
From:	Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>
To:	John David Anglin <dave@...uly1.hia.nrc.ca>
Cc:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, grundler@...isc-linux.org,
	kyle@...artin.ca, matthew@....cx, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	bdale@...com
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] binfmt_som.c: add MODULE_LICENSE

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:56:51AM -0400, John David Anglin wrote:
...
> I don't understand why we are talking about HP here.

My bad. I thought HP owned the copy right to the bulk of the code
and Matthew demonstrated they do not.

>  According to
> Matthew, his last commit to this file occured while he worked for
> Genedata.  It is my understanding that copyright normally acrues
> to employers in employment situations.  If Matthew was an employee
> and not an independent contractor at the time, then why are we not
> talking about Genedata, or its subsequent owner?  Subsequent
> employment at HP or their funding of the parisc port shouldn't
> affect the licensing of a file that was previously contributed.

Correct. I thought the work was done by HP employees and that was wrong.

sorry,
grant

> The file appears to be a derived work.  This may also affect its
> copyright status.  The only reason HP should be involved is if the
> file somehow contains material copyrighted by HP.
> 
> The whole licensing issue for the linux program and modules,
> particularly for individual files, appears to be a mess.  The
> COPYING file is vague on the licensing for files.   The recommended
> wording suggested by the FSF isn't used.  I can't see that adding
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") lines is going to help much.
> 
> There are several GPL licenses and versions.  The line isn't
> going to mean much to a lawyer.  I really think each file should
> be specific about its licensing in words that can be clearly
> understood.
> 
> Dave
> -- 
> J. David Anglin                                  dave.anglin@...-cnrc.gc.ca
> National Research Council of Canada              (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602)
--
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/