From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Baurjan Ismagulov Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:22:36 +0000 Subject: Re: FPU context switching fix for SMP Message-Id: <20050129182236.GE11528@radix50.net> List-Id: References: <41f753cabb795@wp.pl> In-Reply-To: <41f753cabb795@wp.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: sparclinux@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 03:09:51PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:06:41 +0100 Baurjan Ismagulov wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:26:10AM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > > > Are you sure a bugfix merits a copyright attribution? It's atypical > > > elsewhere... > > > > IANAL, but as I understand section 2 of GPL, it requires that any > > changes are logged. > > It's only relevant if it is significant enough for copyright purposes. > Changes or bug fixes that are only 2 or 3 lines in nature, generally > aren't. Ok, then our legal dept. interprets the license too literally :) . > 1) copyright law and licensing are two different things, don't confuse > them Sure. The OP hasn't claimed copyright, he's just put a modification notice. As he distributes his modification, however, he has to comply with the GPL, which doesn't say that 2a applies to legally significant changes only, that is why I wrote my previous e-mail. Thanks for the explanations! With kind regards, Baurjan.