Re: [PATCH] Enable writing to ATA devices, fix several bugs

[Javier Martín]

El lun, 21-07-2008 a las 17:20 +0200, Marco Gerards escribió:
> Javier Martín <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > El lun, 21-07-2008 a las 14:49 +0200, Marco Gerards escribió:
> >> Pavel Roskin <address@hidden> writes:
> >> 
> >> > On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 20:55 +0200, Marco Gerards wrote:
> >> >> Pavel Roskin <address@hidden> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> > I know.  That's why I'll write it from specifications or maybe I'll
> >> >> > take it from the GNU/Hurd code.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Taking it from Specifications will be better.
> >> >> 
> >> >> I think the ATA driver of GNU Mach comes from Linux 2.0 or so.  So
> >> >> that won't change anything for us ;(.
> >> >
> >> > I don't think choosing consistent names could be interpreted as a
> >> > copyright violation (except by companies like SCO, but then all bets are
> >> > off).
> >> 
> >> No, you are right.  But it means that you have a look at the Linux ATA
> >> code.  If you copy Linux names into our code, people could claim that
> >> we looked at Linux and based our code on it.
> > So what? Aren't both Linux and GRUB under the GPL? That _should_ mean
> > that we can look at their code and put it into GRUB ("create a
> > derivative work") either as-is or modified.
> 
> For GRUB 2 we require copyright assignments.
>  
> >> > Anyway, if I ever have a chance to touch the GRUB ATA code again, I'll
> >> > use FreeBSD as a reference.  Using specification is probably not the
> >> > best idea because we need GRUB to work on the real life hardware, and we
> >> > need to be prepared to handle known quirks in popular hardware.
> >> 
> >> We were talking about not looking at copyrighted code as a
> >> reference...  But looking at FreeBSD would be better than looking at
> >> Linux if we want to avoid possible copyright problems.
> > I still don't understand this: the GPL includes an irrevocable grant as
> > long as the license is obeyed. As for copyright problems, Linux has had
> > several clashes (SCO et al), but in each and every instance people has
> > raised against the attacker, defended Linux and won in court. I say it
> > "offers" quite good copyright shielding.
> 
> This isn't about licenses.  This is about copyright.
I know, I know... What I'm asking is _why_ this whole obsession about
copyright assignments. Is there a page in the wiki explaining it?

signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente