On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:44:33AM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 09:21:30AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On 25/04/16 20:49, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 06:15:25PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > > >> Hi Andre, > > >> > > >> I'm just randomly jumping in here because I spotted a typo in $SUBJECT. > > >> 'accessor' has too many c's. Also, just curious, but if the author is > > >> from Linaro (hi Christoffer), then why do the new files this patch adds > > >> have ARM copyrights? > > >> > > > > > > We just decided to let ARM deal with asserting the license since we all > > > collaborated on it, but others also suggested that we should let ARM and > > > Linaro share the license. > > > > I personally have no objections to having both ARM and Linaro sharing > > the copyright, but I just don't know how this works in practice (and > > asking any legal department is a sure recipe to delay these patches for > > an extra 6 months, give or take a few years). > > > > In the end, all I care about is the licence under which the code is > > released. > > > > Thanks, my curiosity is satisfied. I fully agree that if it's not easy > to share a collaborated file, then it's just a matter of flipping a coin, > or defaulting to whichever has the majority. > I also only care about the license under which it is released. I opted for defaulting to the company that is most set up to pursue any potential infringement on the copyright. -Christoffer _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
