[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH 04/10 v2] [ARM] TQMA31: add new board with i.MX31 processor
Jerry Van Baren
gerald.vanbaren at ge.com
Wed Jul 9 14:09:10 CEST 2008
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Jens Gehrlein wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/board/tqc/tqma31/Makefile b/board/tqc/tqma31/Makefile
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..f7e17c8
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/board/tqc/tqma31/Makefile
>> @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
>> +#
>> +# Copyright (C) 2008, Guennadi Liakhovetski <lg at denx.de>
>> +# Copyright (C) 2008, Jens Gehrlein <sew_s at tqs.de>
>
> Thanks for the credit, but, although IANAL, I think, one does not _have_
> to preserve the copyright of the original file when it gets copied to a
> new one. Otherwise most open-source files would have a veeeery long list
> of Copyrights:-) Am I right?
>
> Thanks
> Guennadi
IANAL, but I play one on Groklaw sometimes, much to PJ's chagrin. ;-)
This is a squishy area. It is dependent on what of the original work
survives the modification and whether the surviving pieces are
copyrightable. It also depends on what country you are contemplating
suing in.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_and_exceptions_to_copyright>
Things that must be done in certain ways are not copyrightable, so
Makefiles are pretty marginal to start with IMHO.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality>
My opinion is to leave the original copyright notice in there and err on
the side of preserving reasonable copyright notices. The lawyers will
be happy to tell us that we did it wrong if it ever came to a lawsuit,
and I would prefer that they tell us that we had a useless copyright
notice in the file rather than tell us that we should have had a notice
but didn't...
Best regards,
gvb
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list