Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <298bef5fa91630478e4815f9f797fb904455d873.camel@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfsd: fix licensing header in filecache.c
From:   Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc:     Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 31 Oct 2022 09:48:30 -0400
In-Reply-To: <Y1/OFbwh8WtbjKH0@infradead.org>
References: <20221026143518.250122-1-jlayton@kernel.org>
         <Y1+A7XzxKbRCCH4z@infradead.org>
         <3C6909FD-6079-48AC-93E2-BD7937E31F86@oracle.com>
         <Y1/OFbwh8WtbjKH0@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.4 (3.44.4-2.fc36) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

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:
> >=20
> > The e-mail address in the copyright notice is stale. Is the convention
> > to leave stale e-mail addresses in place?
> >=20
> > So I would expect copyright ownership of this code to go to Primary Dat=
a,
> > 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.
>=20
> I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I've talked to a few, so:
>=20
>  - 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.
--=20
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>