On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Sadly, what a mess!!! > > Jassi, you don't own the copyright, your company did, as they employed > you to do the job. So both your and Kukjin are not correct in claiming > the copyright!! > Read the thread again. Nobody is claiming the copyright, it rests with Samsung as before. Kukjin thinks merging two files is a serious enough change to warrant co-authorship, which I disagree. (The line below 'Copyright' tells the author, and its email, of the file). > Jassi, your claim on being author is certainly right and you name should > be there as MODULE_AUTHOR. > Please check, it is there indeed. > Also, If you had a Authors line added and that was removed, then I would > have agreed with you. > Equally objectionable is any tom, dick or harry claiming co-authorship of a code(f3.c) that is almost an equivalent of 'cat f1.c f2.c > f3.c' I am equally pissed off by the fact that Kukjin/Boojin sneaked in the co-authorship in this revision while carrying over the Acked-by's from previous revision as if it has already been approved by others. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |