linux-kernel - Re: Feedback please: [PATCH] leds: New PCEngines Alix LED driver using gpio interface

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:07:28 -0600
From:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To:	Ed W <lists@...dgooses.com>
Cc:	Andres Salomon <dilinger@...ued.net>, rpurdie@...ys.net,
	linux-geode@...ts.infradead.org, const@...as.ru,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Feedback please: [PATCH] leds: New PCEngines Alix LED driver
 using gpio interface

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 05:04:25PM +0000, Ed W wrote:
> Hi Andres
> 
> Thanks for your feedback!
> 
> >> Additionally it relies on parts of the patch: 7f131cf3ed
> >> by: Daniel Mack <daniel@...aq.de> to perform detection of the Alix
> >> board
> 
> ..
> >> - * Copyright (C) 2008 Constantin Baranov <const@...as.ru>
> > 
> > This copyright line should not be removed, so long as parts of the
> > original driver (such as alix_present) remain.
> 
> Thanks for guidance here.
> 
> Can I ask for further thought on this - there is very close to zero
> original driver present, and although I had better do some more diffs to
> be sure, I think you would see the only common code was the #includes, a
> "force" param and a few other { }s?
> 
> I did deliberately reuse the "alix_present" function, but this appears
> to be written by Daniel Mack and contributed in patch: 7f131cf3ed -
> however, Daniel is not listed in the current copyright statement on the
> module (I did copy him and Constantin in on this patch so that either
> might object?).  Also I have tried to show this code attribution in the
> commit statement?
> 
> I have also noted in the code that this is based on leds-net5501.c - is
> this a sufficient and normal attribution?
> 
> Can someone offer a final "ruling" as to how I should state the
> copyright line given that the code was written by taking the
> leds-net5501.c skeleton and approximately applying the commit
> 7f131cf3ed, to give the current code?

Use common sense.  It is always safe to leave copyright notices in
place, but if it really does look like the old stuff is gone then go
ahead and drop it.

Same goes when you clone a driver.  The original copyrights should not
be stripped off unless there really is nothing left.

g.

--
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/