On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 03:09:51PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:06:41 +0100 Baurjan Ismagulov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:26:10AM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > > > Are you sure a bugfix merits a copyright attribution? It's atypical > > > elsewhere... > > > > IANAL, but as I understand section 2 of GPL, it requires that any > > changes are logged. > > It's only relevant if it is significant enough for copyright purposes. > Changes or bug fixes that are only 2 or 3 lines in nature, generally > aren't.
Ok, then our legal dept. interprets the license too literally :) . > 1) copyright law and licensing are two different things, don't confuse > them Sure. The OP hasn't claimed copyright, he's just put a modification notice. As he distributes his modification, however, he has to comply with the GPL, which doesn't say that 2a applies to legally significant changes only, that is why I wrote my previous e-mail. Thanks for the explanations! With kind regards, Baurjan. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
