From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khalasa@piap.pl (Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Ha=C5=82asa?=) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 09:24:39 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] IXP4xx: Add Gateworks Cambria support. In-Reply-To: (Imre Kaloz's message of "Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:13:39 +0200") References: Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org "Imre Kaloz" writes: > So you delete portions of the code because you don't want to ask > someone with the board to test your changes if needed, but given quite > some people use the code for quite some time, you can also assume it > works for them. No, I didn't delete any code at all. Look at the patch again, it's only adding stuff. I have picked up parts of your code (parts of another project). GPL doesn't allow a requirement that I have to take the whole. > OpenWrt (yeah, we spell it this way for about 10 years now) Sorry, didn't know, I don't use it. > is a Linux distribution, you do mix things up a bit here. Well, at least Cambria code is not a part of the official Linux then. > It's up to you if you add your copyright, but removing others' is > clearly a different story legally. And I bet that's the same in your > country, too. You are making things up. I didn't remove anything. I've created a derivative work of (among others) your project. The copyright for the base work doesn't apply for the derivative work, the creator of the derivative work formally holds the copyright. The GPL explicitly allows creating derivative works - actually, the whole point about GPL is encouraging derivative works. OpenWrt is based on other works in precisely the same way. I didn't include my copyright because I didn't care a bit. The code in question is mostly a trivial list of devices, and I guess in most parts it's not even copyrightable. Remember, copyright is about the form, and there aren't two ways to express e.g. that it has a serial port (identical to other IXP4xx platforms), that it has a NOR flash (identical to others) and so on. > I'll do when I'll get around it. Both others and we've pushed a lot of > code upstream. In the meantime, anyone is free to do so, including you > - dumbing down the code could be justifiable in some cases (I don't > think this one applies), but dropping others' copyright -- hardly. Again, creating derivative works by picking up needed parts is not dropping or dumbing anything. You are trying to force your view of what is justifiable and what does apply. There is absolutely no legal or other basis for this. I have to say I'm disappointed. I didn't expect such reaction from you. Actually I thought I was helping your project a bit (and my project, of course). Since the former is not the case, I'm simply withdrawing my patch. -- Krzysztof Halasa Research Institute for Automation and Measurements PIAP Al. Jerozolimskie 202, 02-486 Warsaw, Poland