sorry about the copyright things. it's an old patch about this superio which used by the jetway mainboard, and i just used my own perl script to deal with all of the format things and copyright things. I am not much understand all of these copy right things. I am a new guy about these. the patch which is attached restore the copyright to its original status.
Signed-off-by: Wang Qing Pei wangqingpei@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:44 AM, xdrudis xdrudis@tinet.cat wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 05:53:19PM -0400, Corey Osgood wrote:
Here's the problem: some time ago, someone wrote a superio chip.h that contained this:
[...]
Sorry, I didn't understand the problem. I thought it was triviality and it was removal of the whole contribution of a previous author.
removing everything that I did to that file. So why should they leave me as a copyright holder on the file?
Because it is easier than finding out who is the real author of the part of the file that survives. It makes nothing worse than it was and it does not bring more risks than removing your name. If they remove your copyright statement they have to make sure that you really didn't change more than what they have replaced. They may not be able to verify that unless svn kept track of which was the original file (I think it depends on whether you did svn cp or cp ?). If they leave your name and there's nothing you wrote on the file what's the worst than can happen ? That you sue them for attributing to you something you didn't write ? I don't think you could, specially if they add their own name, they are not saying which author wrote what. They took a collective work, made a derivative work and added their name to the previous authors. If you don't want that then simply add a comment speciying which part are yours and which aren't (but I hope you don't). If they remove your name and somehow you had changed something in the file that's still there they could have more problems, I think.
If somebody knew what the first file was, at least pepole could always use that as a template and keep the copyright notices shorter (they and the original author). But if it's too late for that I don't think that following the routine of keeping the original copyrights has so severe a consequence that it is worth making exceptions.
But I think I'm arguing too much for something that it is not so important to me and that I'm no expert in. I feel like I'm splitting hair. I should be splitting patches...
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot