Javier Martín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> El lun, 21-07-2008 a las 17:20 +0200, Marco Gerards escribió:
>> Javier Martín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > El lun, 21-07-2008 a las 14:49 +0200, Marco Gerards escribió:
>> >> Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 20:55 +0200, Marco Gerards wrote:
>> >> >> Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?
I think I explained this already and I do not want to keep repeating
everything I said several times. There is not wiki page, but there is
a document about this for GNU maintainers:
http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Copyright-Papers
--
Marco
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
