From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Doug Ledford Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] update ocrdma to dual license Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 12:16:29 -0400 Message-ID: <55BB9F5D.8040102@redhat.com> References: <1434127505-17739-1-git-send-email-devesh.sharma@avagotech.com> <20150630060631.GA21105@infradead.org> <20150701072120.GB31381@infradead.org> <2807E5FD2F6FDA4886F6618EAC48510E110A880D@CRSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com> <559D7AEF.6070405@redhat.com> <20150708193644.GA24683@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Q0g0KrcRsCgDj9HHwT4Q1FsxWn3Smk9bc" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Christoph Lameter , Christoph Hellwig Cc: "Weiny, Ira" , Devesh Sharma , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --Q0g0KrcRsCgDj9HHwT4Q1FsxWn3Smk9bc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 07/31/2015 10:34 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jul 2015, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >=20 >> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 03:33:03PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: >>> I am not a lawyer, but this has been explained to me on numerous >>> occasions, so I relay the layman's interpretation here: >>> >>> No, you don't always need everyone's approval. There are contributio= ns >>> that are not legally copyright worthy. >> >> There are. But for an open source project trying to deal with slipper= y >> slot is not worth it. Just get an ACK from everyone to be on the safe= >> side and show that you act in good faith. >=20 > Note that there are numerous contributions in the IB subsystem from fol= ks > not in the OFA. Those certainly have the expectation that their work wa= s > under the GPLv2 and not BSD. If they made the contribution to a file that listed a dual license at the top of the file (or a dual license file in the directory covering all of the files in that directory) and they didn't bother to check the license before contributing and then expected it to be under the GPL only and not a dual GPL/BSD, then that is their problem for not paying attention to the copyright of the files in question. Expectation only matters if there isn't a clearly spelled out copyright. When a clearly spelled out copyright exists, it certainly trumps inattentive expectation= s. --=20 Doug Ledford GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD --Q0g0KrcRsCgDj9HHwT4Q1FsxWn3Smk9bc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVu59dAAoJELgmozMOVy/djyMP/A13R1ByzArSWARv/D3B4oie OZDS/1+D9kcu4NC0P+XQoa5ri8hNhNbawqc9gYAKUuoyF16BRKYNhf3sFWhS0DsD oqf+6eDeYQawYyDrJWJvGWA3rt4/qu62NLtX6rHT69OCieE9HfmH2H7twVBXmGSb +DCVeLibXcnqCDlyyMVfgSAlYwEgJcMaby+pofao8WrQ5biOIOpurmGwYKmiHszW sfZI6Gd0rw4H7f4ESPqPLhYkfrzo7aU/5PEnoWS9QMVvAzYgNos64nokxrtGA+Vl DMMgch4uPvgZh4jQWv0ZydegOUQZJX+7dUVzPnm/21pfDuEP3t1GIyYFA/RnSkWx X13UmQSOwkhMuzlZu/f0oFk4ALyAXBD8BebtOEIputPiF6PcI5KSEPsEzqRDTK0l OrFa8qtba3SV8klm/9BVJLmL8mpy3DiECcFJBRUodg3qJ2CPpWV/p+b/CwBPKMvX 3xYm8XijzH9GAfdjEDTP0elUVyl+9d4SQtJmbJ4XYtLA10TDytH+L1ZleAw7AcXN XBo1d9cEQCa19Bh286Ud5vSC0xqLjRUksHkOn0LaIkpqsFyki5mhWTqglgdnO3CD yxuMSSPHpBJXlLfT/yr/3PY9n4kfuR9XbX02Yt/mnsFF73Tt7bSmU9kZ/xl4X1aR F7/BjHnTrsjlDxIRz+Al =oaun -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Q0g0KrcRsCgDj9HHwT4Q1FsxWn3Smk9bc-- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html