Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261197AbVEVSOR (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 May 2005 14:14:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261213AbVEVSOQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 May 2005 14:14:16 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:4829 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261197AbVEVSOM (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 May 2005 14:14:12 -0400 Subject: Re: When we detect that a 16550 was in fact part of a NatSemi SuperIO chip From: Arjan van de Ven To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <200505220008.j4M08uE9025378@hera.kernel.org> <1116763033.19183.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 20:14:06 +0200 Message-Id: <1116785646.6285.24.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 (2.0.4-4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.7 (+++) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 2.63 on pentafluge.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (3.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.1 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org [] 2.5 RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK RBL: Sent directly from dynamic IP address [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS RBL: SORBS: sender is listed in SORBS [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1091 Lines: 28 On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 09:59 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sun, 22 May 2005, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > Linus, please do not apply patches from me which have my personal > > information mangled or removed. > > I've asked Russell not to do it, but the fact is, he's worried about legal > issues, and while I've also tried to resolve those (by having the OSDL > lawyer try to contact some lawyers in the UK), that hasn't been clarified > yet. there is a potential nasty interaction with the UK moral rights thing where an author can demand that his authorship claim remains intact... so if David objects to his authorship being mangled (and partially removed) he may have a strong legal position to do so. Arjan ... who is wondering if the UK DPA law is in conflict with UK copyright law and is glad to not be in the UK anymore - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/