From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Renninger Subject: Re: Documentation - How to debug ACPI Problems Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:49:26 +0200 Message-ID: <1187110166.8780.522.camel@queen.suse.de> References: <1181140008.28514.259.camel@queen.suse.de> <9a8748490706060759s5d8c43bdoc34334fcf56ee96@mail.gmail.com> <1181579321.28514.304.camel@queen.suse.de> <200708141140.02233.lenb@kernel.org> Reply-To: trenn@suse.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200708141140.02233.lenb@kernel.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: "Brown, Len" , linux-kernel , linux-acpi , Jesper Juhl , Zhang Rui , Alexey Starikovskiy List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 11:40 -0400, Len Brown wrote: > > +Thomas Renninger , 2007 > > +Copyright (C) 2007 SUSE Linux GmbH > > While it seems to be generally customary to identify the authors of Documentation > files, it doesn't seem to be customary for them to assert a copyright. > Is this really necessary? My concern is that it could discourage contributors > for user or changing the text in any way they see fit. > > can anybody offer guidance on this? > I am no license expert, but if you do a: grep Copyright Documentation/ -r you see hundreds of Copyrights clauses..., everything in kernel is under GPL anyway and AFAIK the Copyright is just the explicit statement that the Author implicitly has anyway... I don't care that much whether you exactly take this one. You still might want to take your documentation (I didn't know that you already set up this one on your ftp account). You still might want to merge parts of mine if it's appropriate, add a "thanks for input" or not, at least people have something to read at the end... Thanks, Thomas