Re: When we detect that a 16550 was in fact part of a NatSemi SuperIO chip

["Brian O'Mahoney" <omb@khandalf.com>]

Please see below.

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 22 May 2005, Russell King wrote:
> 
>>Therefore, I put forward that this thing which appears to be called
>>"author" does not reflect authorship, but who submitted it.
> 
> 
> It _is_ supposed to reflect authorship, but it does so within the context 
> of the SCM, not in any other larger context. In git, "author:" is a fairly 
> descriptive TAG, nothing more.
> 
> Don't get hung up about technicalities. If the field said
> 
> 	frog: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
> 
> that wouldn't mean that Arjan would have been magically transformed into a
> frog in the real world sense, would it?
> 
> The fact that the field says "author:" does not mean that the person named
> is necessarily the "author" in the _copyright_ sense, it only means that
> he is the author in the limited sense that "git" gives it. And in the 
> limited "git" sense, it's really an educated guess, aka "we're tryign to 
> give credit where credit is due".

There is an argument, after SCO, for a

copyright: xxx

tag, and a clear public statement on the kernel.org home page about
assignment, the GPL and submission.

> 
> The fact is, trying to be technical about single words in human language
> and thinking that that a meaning in one specific context carries over to
> some other usage of a word in another context is simply not true. Not 
> here, not _anywhere_. 
> 
> And btw, lawyers and judges aren't idiots either. They're human beings, 
> and they can tell the difference between two contexts. Trying to argue 
> some silly technicality with a judge is not likely to get you very far in 
> general.

Absolutely right, and outside the US, the Costs in Cause, principle
means that any attempt at vexatious litigation is likely to prove an
expensive mistake.

-- 
mit freundlichen Grüßen, Brian.