From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudip Mukherjee Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 1/2] serial: exar: split out the exar code from 8250_pci Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 22:07:29 +0000 Message-ID: <5898F3A1.2050004@gmail.com> References: <1485815302-5708-1-git-send-email-sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> <5894F6A2.5000609@gmail.com> <1a0e4034-007e-d5cf-27ff-eb382ead776e@siemens.com> <20170206140616.GA9872@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170206140616.GA9872@kroah.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jan Kiszka Cc: Jiri Slaby , Andy Shevchenko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org On Monday 06 February 2017 02:06 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 02:49:07PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2017-02-03 22:31, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: >>> On Friday 03 February 2017 02:02 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> BTW, are you personally the copyright holder or your employer Codethink? >>>> Depends on your contractual situation, but the former is less common. >>> >>> Well, Codethink has nothing to do with this patch. This was a voluntary >>> work started before I joined Codethink, but then I joined Codethink and >>> found very little time to finish this. So finally now its done. >>> >>> https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/2015-November/015372.html >>> >> >> Hmm, why using your corporate email address then? This suggests a >> different copyright situation. >> >> Funnily, I just received this question internally: How can you tell >> apart if someone sends a personal contribution via his/her employer >> account from someone contributing on behalf of a company, thus with that >> company holding the rights? I argued that no one would do the former to >> prevent wrong accounting, but you just proved a counterexample. :) > > There are numerous companies that do this, some create whole shell > orginizations in order to "hide" their kernel contributions for various > "interesting" reasons. > > Fun stuff. I suggest having your internal people talk to your lawyers, > they should know all about this (and if not, have those lawyers talk to > the LF lawyers...) > > But that's not the issue here, we know Sudip :) :) Regards Sudip