Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:05:35 -0600 | From | Grant Grundler <> | Subject | Re: [2.6 patch] binfmt_som.c: add MODULE_LICENSE |
| |
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 09:14:33AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: ... > > If that is indeed the timing, I agree. If not, let me know, and I'll > > see if I can push the right buttons in HP. > > http://cvs.parisc-linux.org/obsolete/linux-2.2/fs/binfmt_som.c?rev=1.8&view=log > > indicates I first committed the file in June 1999 and was the majority > committer to this file (prumpf also committed some code). My last > commit to it was in November 1999 (while I still worked for Genedata).
Ok - I didn't realize that.
> At some point around then, we moved to the 2.4 CVS tree: > > http://cvs.parisc-linux.org/linux-2.4/fs/binfmt_som.c?rev=1.21&view=log > > and there are some commits from other people at HP and myself while at > Linuxcare and HP.
Thanks for digging this up. I expect it should be easy for Bdale to get this rubber stamped by any one of the HP linux kernel engineers. HP legal shouldn't need to be involved.
> > The 2.5 development tree: > http://cvs.parisc-linux.org/linux-2.5/fs/binfmt_som.c?rev=1.3&view=log > > doesn't show anything of great interest. > > and the 2.6 tree represents accurately how much effort we put into SOM: > http://cvs.parisc-linux.org/linux-2.6/fs/binfmt_som.c?rev=1.8&view=log > > > So while HP has a legitimate claim to some parts of the file, my initial > contributions before I worked for Linuxcare or HP were the largest and I > don't think that anyone has a legitimate claim that this is not a > derived work of GPL code, and hence I think Adrian's patch should be > accepted.
I agree and apologize for my bad memory and lazy attitude. I didn't mean to make a big deal of this - just assumed HP was the right party to address this to.
cheers, grant
> > -- > Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine > "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this > operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such > a retrograde step."
| |