Hi, On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 06:46:48PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > Rafael Neves wrote on Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:29:35PM +0100: > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 03:33:00PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > > >> - Put the correct manual page author into the Copyright notice. > > > I think that I shouldn't be in the copyright notice, because thre > > is no original work from me. I just copied the dwctwo(4) manpage > > and tweaked it, it is why there is Visa name there. > > Technically, what you sent is a *derived work*. In that case, > the original Copyright applies to the unchanged parts, and new > Copyright comes into existence covering your changes, so in > general, there should be two Copyright lines with different names. > > However, diffing the two files, i find that all that remains from > the original file is this: > > .Os > .Sh NAME > .Sh SYNOPSIS > .Sh DESCRIPTION > The > .Nm > driver provides support for ... > devices. > .Sh SEE ALSO > .Xr ehci 4 , > .Xr ohci 4 > .Sh HISTORY > The > .Nm > driver first appeared in > > That is all boilerplate text, imho insufficient to establish > Copyright, and besides, Visa explicitly confirmed that he does not > recognize the file as containing any of his work any longer, after > your changes. If you delete all original work from a file, you can > delete the Copyright notice as well. On the other hand, adding > your Copyright makes sense because you changed and added various > lines of text containing actual content. So if the file is worthy > of Copyright at all - which i think it is, creativity standards in > Copyright are quite low - your name should be there. And even if > the file as whole would not meet the creativity threshold, putting > your Copyright header is better than having none because it avoids > doubt. > > Do you still object? In this case, I don't object anymore. If Visa does not recognize it as his work, and a file without a Coypright notice is strange (what I agree), I think that is the best solution.
> > > I think it is like when you copy a source file and tweaks some > > magic numbers, or use a whole file in some other place in the tree > > with some modifications. It generally does not implies putting the > > name in the copyright notice, what I think is correct. > > For minor changes in a substantial file, you are right. But in > this case, non-boilerplate Copyrightable content is sparse in the > first place, and you changed most of what there is. > All right. But, I have to admit that the idea of derived work in such short content manpage is very ethereal for me. :) > Yours, > Ingo >
