On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:56:51AM -0400, John David Anglin wrote:
...
> I don't understand why we are talking about HP here.
My bad. I thought HP owned the copy right to the bulk of the code
and Matthew demonstrated they do not.
> According to
> Matthew, his last commit to this file occured while he worked for
> Genedata. It is my understanding that copyright normally acrues
> to employers in employment situations. If Matthew was an employee
> and not an independent contractor at the time, then why are we not
> talking about Genedata, or its subsequent owner? Subsequent
> employment at HP or their funding of the parisc port shouldn't
> affect the licensing of a file that was previously contributed.
Correct. I thought the work was done by HP employees and that was wrong.
sorry,
grant
> The file appears to be a derived work. This may also affect its
> copyright status. The only reason HP should be involved is if the
> file somehow contains material copyrighted by HP.
>
> The whole licensing issue for the linux program and modules,
> particularly for individual files, appears to be a mess. The
> COPYING file is vague on the licensing for files. The recommended
> wording suggested by the FSF isn't used. I can't see that adding
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") lines is going to help much.
>
> There are several GPL licenses and versions. The line isn't
> going to mean much to a lawyer. I really think each file should
> be specific about its licensing in words that can be clearly
> understood.
>
> Dave
> --
> J. David Anglin dave.anglin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
