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 <[email protected]> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:44 AM, xdrudis <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] > http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot > -- Wang Qing Pei Phone: 86+13426369984
copyright.diff
Description: Binary data
-- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
