lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 1/1] usb: Adding SuperSpeed support to dummy_hcd
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 02:29:39PM -0800, Bryan Huntsman wrote:
> On 11/17/2010 05:23 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:59:48PM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 13:35 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 04:08:12PM +0200, Tatyana Brokhman wrote:
> >>>> USB 3.0 hub includes 2 hubs - HS and SS ones.
> >>>> Thus, when dummy_hcd enabled it will register 2 root hubs (SS and HS).
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Tatyana Brokhman <tlinder@codeaurora.org>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/usb/gadget/dummy_hcd.c | 500 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>>> 1 files changed, 487 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/dummy_hcd.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/dummy_hcd.c
> >>>> index 13b9f47..ec6adf6 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/dummy_hcd.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/dummy_hcd.c
> >>>> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
> >>>> *
> >>>> * Copyright (C) 2003 David Brownell
> >>>> * Copyright (C) 2003-2005 Alan Stern
> >>>> + * Copyright (C) 2010 Code Aurora Forum. All rights reserved.
> >>>
> >>> Does your lawyers agree that this is correct to add based on the size of
> >>> the file? Hint, it doesn't pass the rule that some lawyers I work with
> >>> go by, so I would be surprised that it passes theirs.
> >>
> >> It's part of our requirements .. However, if you push back on it I think
> >> Tatyana can remove it.
> >
> > It's not a valid requirement as it's not legally acceptable by the
> > grounds of the lawyers I have worked with in the past.
> >
> > So yes, again, I'm pushing back on this. Can you prove that it is
> > something that is legally viable?
>
> This might help:
>
> Code Aurora Forum is non-profit mutual benefit corporation
> Incorporated in the State of California. Please see
> https://www.codeaurora.org/learn/.

That's fine, but again, this patch does not meet the grounds for
allowing the ability to place any new copyright on the top of the file
as per the rules layed out to me by a group of copyright lawyers that I
trust.

And this whole thing was started by the odd rule that Code Aurora seems
to have of trying to put such markings on _any_ file they touch, which
is not a good thing as people are very picky about that, and for good
reason.

> >>> Also, I didn't think that "Code Aurora Forum" was a "real" legal entity
> >>> last time I looked, so how can it own copyrights? Who is the "real"
> >>> owner here? (hint, who does your lawyers work for...)
> >>
> >> The "Code Aurora Forum" is a real entity, and they do take the
> >> copyrights .. At least that's the intent I think. We're not lawyers tho.
> >>
> >> I work for QuiC which stands for Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. (as
> >> mentioned below) .. I think Tatyana does as well since he emails have
> >> the same signature as mine.
> >
> > Then how can the copyright go to "code aurora forum"? That's my main
> > point here, there are multiple "shell" organizations at play, all of
> > which are trying to hide legal culpability, so to try to then try to get
> > legal rights seems very disingenuous, if not flat out impossible.
>
> People working on CodeAurora Forum projects have the option to assign
> copyright for their work to CodeAurora. The patch under question can
> be found on CodeAurora at this location:
>
> https://www.codeaurora.org/patches/quic/kernel/tlinder/2010-11-16/

Ok, so how do we know if such copyright was properly assigned when you
all end up putting:

> --
> Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

Or something like that, in your .signature?

Being an employee or contractor of a different company than the one that
your patch is claiming owns the copyright of, sets of huge red flags to
those of us who have to deal with these things every day. That
copyright sometimes can _not_ be assigned to a different company
(depending on the country where the work was done), or if it can be, it
needs to be done in a manner that is told to the acceptor of the patch.

Hope this helps explain my "grumpiness" when it comes to this type of
thing. I've had to sit through too many lawyer lectures about
copyrights and licenses and all this type of stuff in order to ensure
that everything works out properly for the kernel community and the
companies and individuals who contribute to it.

thanks,

greg k-h


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-20 01:27    [W:0.036 / U:28.516 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site