On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 10:04:36AM -0400, James Lentini wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 03:39:59PM -0400, James Lentini wrote:
Hi Bernhard,
The changes look fine. Why the additional copyright? I need to be able
to explain it to my legal department.
My legaleeze states that whatever i do during work-time is contributed
to work and whatever is related to work done during leasure time has to
be attributed to /me _at_ _least_. As that snippet (which was a
test-balloon
for that category) clearly was done in my spare time, i'm forced to
attribute it accordingly :-/
Does that answer your question satisfactorily?
Thanks Bernhard. That makes sense to me. My legal inquired about the
"all rights reserved" qualifier. All the copyrights I found in the
OpenIB tree (including NetApp's) use that language. I'll run this by
them.
As rev. 2934 i do not see this patch applied. To recap, it removed some
unneeded local variables (which my compiler wasn't smart enough to
eleminate on it's own -- gcc-4.0 and gcc-HEAD) and simplified some
conditionals and branches.
Back then, i only submitted the changes to dapl_cookie.c to see if such
kind of code simplifications would be accepted or not.
James, can you please elaborate why the patch was rejected?
It wasn't rejected. With the back and forth on the copyright notice, I
thought I was waiting for you to reply. Sorry about that. I'll dust
off the patch and review it again.
_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
