| Message ID | 1462818920-30336-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
Just a note, rather than removeing copyright openwrt you should probably say parts are copyright openwrt and parts copyright lede just because you added a bit doesn't give you sole copyright of the file :-) but it does mean that openwrt doesn't own the copyright of the entire file any more either. the git history can untangle this for anyone who cares. But there is enough bad feelings going around, we don't need someone getting angry over copyright notices being removed. David Lang On Mon, 9 May 2016, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 20:35:20 +0200 > From: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> > To: lede-dev@lists.infradead.org > Cc: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de>, Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> > Subject: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH] bcm53xx: calculate TRX CRC32 using whole kernel > partition > > This provides better protection of flash data. > > Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> > --- > target/linux/bcm53xx/base-files/etc/uci-defaults/09_fix_crc | 9 +++++++-- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/target/linux/bcm53xx/base-files/etc/uci-defaults/09_fix_crc b/target/linux/bcm53xx/base-files/etc/uci-defaults/09_fix_crc > index abbb04a..e8a7e4d 100644 > --- a/target/linux/bcm53xx/base-files/etc/uci-defaults/09_fix_crc > +++ b/target/linux/bcm53xx/base-files/etc/uci-defaults/09_fix_crc > @@ -1,7 +1,12 @@ > #!/bin/sh > # > -# Copyright (C) 2007 OpenWrt.org > +# Copyright (C) 2016 LEDE project > # > # > > -mtd fixtrx firmware || mtd fixseama firmware > +kernel_size=$(cat /proc/mtd | egrep -m 1 "kernel|linux" | cut -d ' ' -f 2) > +[ -n "$kernel_size" ] && kernel_size=$((0x$kernel_size)) > + > +mtd ${kernel_size:+-c $kernel_size} fixtrx firmware && exit 0 > +mtd fixseama firmware && exit 0 > +exit 1 > -- > 1.8.4.5 > > > _______________________________________________ > Lede-dev mailing list > Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
On 9 May 2016 at 20:40, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote: > Just a note, rather than removeing copyright openwrt you should probably say > parts are copyright openwrt and parts copyright lede > > just because you added a bit doesn't give you sole copyright of the file :-) > > but it does mean that openwrt doesn't own the copyright of the entire file > any more either. > > the git history can untangle this for anyone who cares. > > But there is enough bad feelings going around, we don't need someone getting > angry over copyright notices being removed. Please don't top post and consider using dots instead of new lines ;) I'm aware adding something new to the code doesn't give me all Copyrights. The thing is the whole real content of the old file (one line) was rewritten by this patch. That's why I replaced Copyright.
Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> writes: > -# Copyright (C) 2007 OpenWrt.org > +# Copyright (C) 2016 LEDE project I've always wondered about the OpenWrt copyright assigment process, and this looks like a perfect opportunity to clear that up. Why do you assign the copyright to the project? What are the formalities involved here? Is there any paperwork? What legal entity is this "OpenWrt.org" or "LEDE project" now owning the copyright? How do you ensure that they use the code only like you intended after you donated it? I am used to open source projects like the Linux kernel, where every author keeps their copyright. Or projects like those managed by the FSF where you do hand over the copyright to them, by actually signing papers and mailing them in. Both methods have pretty clear legal implications. But OpenWrt.org has always been this odd one, where everyone just writes "Copyright (C) .... OpenWrt.org" seemingly without any thought about how that works. And the LEDE project does the same? What I'd personally hate, was if some bad guys got control over one of these organisations/projects and suddenly owned the copyright of all the work donated to them over the years. The bad guys could then legally relicense all the code under whatever license they wanted. Isn't that unnecessarily risky? IMHO the kernel model is nice for GPL'd code, since it pretty much prevents any relicensing at all. I think maybe a FAQ entry regarding copyright assignment would be nice. I am very confused by this. And a bit scared. But maybe I'm alone there? Bjørn
On 05/09/2016 10:19 PM, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> writes: > >> -# Copyright (C) 2007 OpenWrt.org >> +# Copyright (C) 2016 LEDE project > I am not a lawyer and the following statements could be wrong. > I've always wondered about the OpenWrt copyright assigment process, and > this looks like a perfect opportunity to clear that up. Why do you > assign the copyright to the project? There is no real reason. > What are the formalities involved here? None > Is there any paperwork? No > What legal entity is this "OpenWrt.org" We haven't registered OpenWrt as a legal entity, OpenWrt gets represented by SPI (Software in the Public Interest). It could be that it implicitly gets a legal entity in some laws. > or "LEDE project" now owning the copyright? LEDE project is also no legal entity, it is not even represented by anyone. > How do you ensure that they use the code only like you intended after you donated it? This copyright notice is useless. The copyright will stay at the individual author. At least in Germany it would not be possible for me to give the copyright to OpenWrt or LEDE as OpenWrt and LEDE do not pay me based on the hours I work, or in any other way. > I am used to open source projects like the Linux kernel, where every > author keeps their copyright. Or projects like those managed by the FSF > where you do hand over the copyright to them, by actually signing papers > and mailing them in. Both methods have pretty clear legal implications. In OpenWrt the author holds the copyright we just haven't added the copyright statement everywhere. > But OpenWrt.org has always been this odd one, where everyone just writes > "Copyright (C) .... OpenWrt.org" seemingly without any thought about how > that works. And the LEDE project does the same? > > What I'd personally hate, was if some bad guys got control over one of > these organisations/projects and suddenly owned the copyright of all the > work donated to them over the years. The bad guys could then legally > relicense all the code under whatever license they wanted. Isn't that > unnecessarily risky? IMHO the kernel model is nice for GPL'd code, > since it pretty much prevents any relicensing at all. As the copyright is owned by the individual authors I do not see a problem, just bad documentation. The OpenWrt trade mark is owned by SPI. > I think maybe a FAQ entry regarding copyright assignment would be > nice. I am very confused by this. And a bit scared. But maybe I'm > alone there? I will add this. Hauke
Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de> writes: > On 05/09/2016 10:19 PM, Bjørn Mork wrote: > >> How do you ensure that they use the code only like you intended after you donated it? > This copyright notice is useless. The copyright will stay at the > individual author. At least in Germany it would not be possible for me > to give the copyright to OpenWrt or LEDE as OpenWrt and LEDE do not pay > me based on the hours I work, or in any other way. OK, that makes sense. But it makes me wonder even more about the reasons for putting that misleading copyright statement there. It would be less confusing if you just named the project without the "Copyright" prefix. > As the copyright is owned by the individual authors I do not see a > problem, just bad documentation. The OpenWrt trade mark is owned by SPI. Yes, the docs are bad. I for one will certainly believe whatever a copyright statement says, although as you point out, it doesn't have any legal meaning. >> I think maybe a FAQ entry regarding copyright assignment would be >> nice. I am very confused by this. And a bit scared. But maybe I'm >> alone there? > > I will add this. Thanks. And thanks a lot for taking the time to explain these things. Bjørn
On 10 May 2016 at 09:15, Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no> wrote: > Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de> writes: >> On 05/09/2016 10:19 PM, Bjørn Mork wrote: >> >>> How do you ensure that they use the code only like you intended after you donated it? >> This copyright notice is useless. The copyright will stay at the >> individual author. At least in Germany it would not be possible for me >> to give the copyright to OpenWrt or LEDE as OpenWrt and LEDE do not pay >> me based on the hours I work, or in any other way. > > OK, that makes sense. But it makes me wonder even more about the > reasons for putting that misleading copyright statement there. It would > be less confusing if you just named the project without the "Copyright" > prefix. I agree after reviewing this, I just posted bcm53xx: drop Copyright header from two of my bash scripts https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/620287/
diff --git a/target/linux/bcm53xx/base-files/etc/uci-defaults/09_fix_crc b/target/linux/bcm53xx/base-files/etc/uci-defaults/09_fix_crc index abbb04a..e8a7e4d 100644 --- a/target/linux/bcm53xx/base-files/etc/uci-defaults/09_fix_crc +++ b/target/linux/bcm53xx/base-files/etc/uci-defaults/09_fix_crc @@ -1,7 +1,12 @@ #!/bin/sh # -# Copyright (C) 2007 OpenWrt.org +# Copyright (C) 2016 LEDE project # # -mtd fixtrx firmware || mtd fixseama firmware +kernel_size=$(cat /proc/mtd | egrep -m 1 "kernel|linux" | cut -d ' ' -f 2) +[ -n "$kernel_size" ] && kernel_size=$((0x$kernel_size)) + +mtd ${kernel_size:+-c $kernel_size} fixtrx firmware && exit 0 +mtd fixseama firmware && exit 0 +exit 1
This provides better protection of flash data. Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> --- target/linux/bcm53xx/base-files/etc/uci-defaults/09_fix_crc | 9 +++++++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)