Hi Rafael,

Rafael Neves wrote on Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:29:35PM +0100:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 03:33:00PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:

>>  - Put the correct manual page author into the Copyright notice.

> I think that I shouldn't be in the copyright notice, because thre
> is no original work from me. I just copied the dwctwo(4) manpage
> and tweaked it, it is why there is Visa name there.

Technically, what you sent is a *derived work*.  In that case,
the original Copyright applies to the unchanged parts, and new
Copyright comes into existence covering your changes, so in
general, there should be two Copyright lines with different names.

However, diffing the two files, i find that all that remains from
the original file is this:

 driver provides support for ...
 .Xr ehci 4 ,
 .Xr ohci 4
 driver first appeared in

That is all boilerplate text, imho insufficient to establish
Copyright, and besides, Visa explicitly confirmed that he does not
recognize the file as containing any of his work any longer, after
your changes.  If you delete all original work from a file, you can
delete the Copyright notice as well.  On the other hand, adding
your Copyright makes sense because you changed and added various
lines of text containing actual content.  So if the file is worthy
of Copyright at all - which i think it is, creativity standards in
Copyright are quite low - your name should be there.  And even if
the file as whole would not meet the creativity threshold, putting
your Copyright header is better than having none because it avoids

Do you still object?

> I think it is like when you copy a source file and tweaks some
> magic numbers, or use a whole file in some other place in the tree
> with some modifications. It generally does not implies putting the
> name in the copyright notice, what I think is correct.

For minor changes in a substantial file, you are right.  But in
this case, non-boilerplate Copyrightable content is sparse in the
first place, and you changed most of what there is.


Reply via email to