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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <2637992.xolQO8ly5c@harkonnen> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists