From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dwalker@codeaurora.org (Daniel Walker) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:07:16 -0700 Subject: [GIT PULL] generic arm for MSM try2 In-Reply-To: References: <1269560155.21793.89.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> <20100328214901.GA8614@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <1269881777.17124.5.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> <20100329172841.GD28468@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <1269884644.17124.19.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> Message-ID: <1269889636.17124.30.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 14:51 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 18:28 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > By putting such a boilerplate at the start of the file without some > > > acknowledgement of its past history, they are effectively saying that > > > their copyright extends to everything in the file. That's certainly > > > not the case; take a moment to consider how you'd feel if someone threw > > > their copyright boilerplate on a file you'd written. > > > > There is git history on it. Anyone that looks at the git history would > > know right off we didn't write the whole file. There's nothing stopping > > other copyright holders from adding their copyright on top of ours. > > I think it is far more logical to view it the other way around: you > don't need to add your own copyright notice for minor changes to every > files you touch as the Git history already captures your contribution > credits. Git history captures who wrote the code, not who owns the code. I work for QuiC (Qualcomm Innovation Center) , however, the copyright is "Code Aurora Forum" .. The git history may list me as "@codeaurora.com" or "@quicinc.com" , so given that you really can't be sure of the copyright just with git history. Daniel