On 07/03/2015 11:38 AM, Weiny, Ira wrote:
>>
>> Christoph,
>>
>>
>> Apologies, I misspoke in my response to you. There was a study of the code and
>> we thought it was reasonable to post. However, in retrospect we should have
>> used more due diligence. We're going back to seek explicit consent from key
>> contributors.
>
> I'm no legal expert, but don't you need consent from _all_ contributors?
I am not a lawyer, but this has been explained to me on numerous
occasions, so I relay the layman's interpretation here:
No, you don't always need everyone's approval. There are contributions
that are not legally copyright worthy.
Anyone with questions should speak to a copyright/trademark specialist
attorney and discuss things such as the Merger Doctrine (I think that's
what it's called). My memory is clear enough to know that exceptions
exist, but my memory of the name of the principle under which these
exceptions exist might be wrong.
As far as it would apply to the ocrdma driver though, you either have to
default to asking each contributor for permission, or each contributor's
patches would need to be analyzed by a competent attorney in this area
and all of the contributors with patches that are not exempted would
have to be contacted.
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
