Hi,

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 06:46:48PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> 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:
> 
>  .Os
>  .Sh NAME
>  .Sh SYNOPSIS
>  .Sh DESCRIPTION
>  The
>  .Nm
>  driver provides support for ...
>  devices.
>  .Sh SEE ALSO
>  .Xr ehci 4 ,
>  .Xr ohci 4
>  .Sh HISTORY
>  The
>  .Nm
>  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
> doubt.
> 
> Do you still object?
In this case, I don't object anymore. If Visa does not recognize it
as his work, and a file without a Coypright notice is strange (what
I agree), I think that is the best solution.

> 
> > 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.
> 
All right. But, I have to admit that the idea of derived work in such short
content manpage is very ethereal for me. :)

> Yours,
>   Ingo
> 

Reply via email to