Hi All
I removed almost all. :-)
M
> On Tuesday 06 May 2008, Michal Simek wrote:
>>> Absolutely, but is it really necessary to have 14-16 lines of comment
>>> (including a copyright notice) for a file whose single real line is just
>>> to include another file? i.e. reduce all these to 1 line files.
>> Can I do it? I think every file need license.
>
> If you want a good answer on that, ask your lawyer. In general, every file
> comes with a 'license' (GPLv2) and 'copyright' (you or the person you copied
> from) even if you don't put either statement in the file. Files smaller than
> some 10 lines are usually not considered to be covered by copyright, even
> if you have the statement in there.
>
> Most files nowadays are written by large corporations that have strict rules
> about what you must put in there to protect their intellectual property.
>
> It's certainly safe to leave out the file names from the comments, they don't
> add any value at all.
> Similarly, you should easily be able to leave out the license statement,
> unless you are under a contract that forces you to leave them present.
> Most people here will be happier if you remove the license statements.
>
> The most tricky one part is the copyright statement ("Copyright 2012
> Big Corporation of America"), which you strictly speaking should never
> remove from a file unless you have permission from the copyright holder.
> Many of your files in your patch set are obviously copies of existing
> kernel files, with the original copyright notice replaced with "Atmark
> Techno, inc.". You can draw your own conclusions from that ;-)
>
> Obviously, I am not a lawyer, so don't consider this as legal advice.
>
> I really hope this doesn't turn into a flamewar, as discussions on
> intellectual property sometimes do.
>
> Arnd <><
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
