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