From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Simek Subject: Re: [PATCH 45/56] microblaze_v2: headers simple files - empty or redirect to asm-generic Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 20:46:27 +0200 Message-ID: <4821F903.5070503@seznam.cz> References: <1209901305-6404-1-git-send-email-monstr@seznam.cz> <20080507004702.d516a727.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <482077FE.7080201@seznam.cz> <200805061821.14391.arnd@arndb.de> Reply-To: monstr@seznam.cz Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp1.wifiinternet.cz ([89.31.47.1]:63127 "EHLO bor.wifiinternet.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758573AbYEGSpl (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 14:45:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200805061821.14391.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Stephen Rothwell , John Williams , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, stephen.neuendorffer@xilinx.com, John.Linn@xilinx.com, matthew@wil.cx, will.newton@gmail.com, drepper@redhat.com, microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au, grant.likely@secretlab.ca Hi All I removed almost all. :-) M > On Tuesday 06 May 2008, Michal Simek wrote: >>> Absolutely, but is it really necessary to have 14-16 lines of comment >>> (including a copyright notice) for a file whose single real line is just >>> to include another file? i.e. reduce all these to 1 line files. >> Can I do it? I think every file need license. > > If you want a good answer on that, ask your lawyer. In general, every file > comes with a 'license' (GPLv2) and 'copyright' (you or the person you copied > from) even if you don't put either statement in the file. Files smaller than > some 10 lines are usually not considered to be covered by copyright, even > if you have the statement in there. > > Most files nowadays are written by large corporations that have strict rules > about what you must put in there to protect their intellectual property. > > It's certainly safe to leave out the file names from the comments, they don't > add any value at all. > Similarly, you should easily be able to leave out the license statement, > unless you are under a contract that forces you to leave them present. > Most people here will be happier if you remove the license statements. > > The most tricky one part is the copyright statement ("Copyright 2012 > Big Corporation of America"), which you strictly speaking should never > remove from a file unless you have permission from the copyright holder. > Many of your files in your patch set are obviously copies of existing > kernel files, with the original copyright notice replaced with "Atmark > Techno, inc.". You can draw your own conclusions from that ;-) > > Obviously, I am not a lawyer, so don't consider this as legal advice. > > I really hope this doesn't turn into a flamewar, as discussions on > intellectual property sometimes do. > > Arnd <>< > >