I'm the same Jeff Layton that worked at Primary Data, but the email
address is no good anymore. Drop the explicit copyright statement
and change it to use a standard SPDX header.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
---
fs/nfsd/filecache.c | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfsd/filecache.c b/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
index 918d67cec1ad..dbc61b243d39 100644
--- a/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
+++ b/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
@@ -1,7 +1,6 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
/*
- * Open file cache.
- *
- * (c) 2015 - Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
+ * The NFSD open file cache.
*/
#include <linux/hash.h>
--
2.37.3
> On Oct 26, 2022, at 10:35 AM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm the same Jeff Layton that worked at Primary Data, but the email
> address is no good anymore. Drop the explicit copyright statement
> and change it to use a standard SPDX header.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
Excellent, I'll apply this today.
> ---
> fs/nfsd/filecache.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/filecache.c b/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
> index 918d67cec1ad..dbc61b243d39 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
> @@ -1,7 +1,6 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> /*
> - * Open file cache.
> - *
> - * (c) 2015 - Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
> + * The NFSD open file cache.
> */
>
> #include <linux/hash.h>
> --
> 2.37.3
>
--
Chuck Lever
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 10:35:18AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> /*
> - * Open file cache.
> - *
> - * (c) 2015 - Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
> + * The NFSD open file cache.
ЅPDX identifiers do not replace copyright statements. So while adding
one is agood idea, dropping the copyright notice (if that counts as one)
is not.
> On Oct 31, 2022, at 4:01 AM, Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 10:35:18AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> /*
>> - * Open file cache.
>> - *
>> - * (c) 2015 - Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
>> + * The NFSD open file cache.
>
> ЅPDX identifiers do not replace copyright statements. So while adding
> one is agood idea, dropping the copyright notice (if that counts as one)
> is not.
I know you are Not A Lawyer (tm), but:
The e-mail address in the copyright notice is stale. Is the convention
to leave stale e-mail addresses in place?
So I would expect copyright ownership of this code to go to Primary Data,
Jeff's employer at the time. But they don't exist now either; it might
be difficult to get permission from them to alter this notice.
--
Chuck Lever
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 01:21:45PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> I know you are Not A Lawyer (tm), but:
>
> The e-mail address in the copyright notice is stale. Is the convention
> to leave stale e-mail addresses in place?
>
> So I would expect copyright ownership of this code to go to Primary Data,
> Jeff's employer at the time. But they don't exist now either; it might
> be difficult to get permission from them to alter this notice.
I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I've talked to a few, so:
- first, does Jeff own the copyright for this code, or his employer at
the time?
- if he owns it, can cna do pretty much whatever he wants
- if he doesn't, I would not touch it without approval from the
copyright holder, which gets a little complicated for a company
that doesn't exist in that form any more.
On Mon, 2022-10-31 at 06:31 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 01:21:45PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> > I know you are Not A Lawyer (tm), but:
> >
> > The e-mail address in the copyright notice is stale. Is the convention
> > to leave stale e-mail addresses in place?
> >
> > So I would expect copyright ownership of this code to go to Primary Data,
> > Jeff's employer at the time. But they don't exist now either; it might
> > be difficult to get permission from them to alter this notice.
>
> I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I've talked to a few, so:
>
> - first, does Jeff own the copyright for this code, or his employer at
> the time?
> - if he owns it, can cna do pretty much whatever he wants
> - if he doesn't, I would not touch it without approval from the
> copyright holder, which gets a little complicated for a company
> that doesn't exist in that form any more.
I went back and looked at the PD employment contract and I think I may
not own the copyright here. There was no explicit carveout for open-
source contributions (like I have at RH).
In light of that, I guess we should drop this patch and replace it with
one that just adds the SPDX header.
--
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
> On Oct 31, 2022, at 9:48 AM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2022-10-31 at 06:31 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 01:21:45PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
>>> I know you are Not A Lawyer (tm), but:
>>>
>>> The e-mail address in the copyright notice is stale. Is the convention
>>> to leave stale e-mail addresses in place?
>>>
>>> So I would expect copyright ownership of this code to go to Primary Data,
>>> Jeff's employer at the time. But they don't exist now either; it might
>>> be difficult to get permission from them to alter this notice.
>>
>> I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I've talked to a few, so:
>>
>> - first, does Jeff own the copyright for this code, or his employer at
>> the time?
>> - if he owns it, can cna do pretty much whatever he wants
>> - if he doesn't, I would not touch it without approval from the
>> copyright holder, which gets a little complicated for a company
>> that doesn't exist in that form any more.
>
> I went back and looked at the PD employment contract and I think I may
> not own the copyright here. There was no explicit carveout for open-
> source contributions (like I have at RH).
>
> In light of that, I guess we should drop this patch and replace it with
> one that just adds the SPDX header.
OK. I can cobble one up.
--
Chuck Lever