[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Support for VIA driver, patch against SVN HEAD

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:30:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > This leaves a few questions open:
> > 
> > A) What does David Dawes regard as "attribution to [him]"?[1]  If the
> >    responsibility for the CVS commit is attributed to him, as it appears
> >    to be in several of the above, does he consider the XFree86 1.1
> >    license to attach to those changes?
> I would really like to know this.  I have not included such commits in my
> most recent summary of potential XFree86 1.1 license issues in X.org.

I don't know the answer.  Perhaps you could ask him, as my efforts over
the past or so to obtain useful information from Mr. Dawes have been in

> The changes would generally be copyright their authors.

I would think so, yes.

> If the authors were contacted directly and released the patches, Dawes
> could be ignored.

I would think so, yes.

> > B) What is Marc La France's policy regarding the application of the
> >    XFree86 1.1 license to modifications he makes to files that bear no
> >    copyright notice by him or by the XFree86 Project, Inc.?
> Maybe someone could ask him personally?  (Or is he not responding to your
> mail either?) There were quite a lot of these, and likewise I have not
> included them in that summary.

I haven't asked Mr. La France personally, but given some of his
messages[1][2] to the X.Org Foundation list, which are vigorously in
favor of the new XFree86 license policy, I would wager he has adopted a
policy similar to Mr. Dawes's.

> > C) Does the XFree86 Project, Inc., consider patches submitted to their
> >    Bugzilla system to have any applicable copyrights therein assigned to
> >    them?
> It had better not; to my knowledge, that doesn't actually happen under US
> law.  There's no way that a voluntarily submitted thing from an outsider is
> a "work for hire", and copyright assignments have to be signed and on
> paper, last time I checked.

That's the best of your and my knowledge; it has not been established
that The XFree86 Project, Inc., its Board of Directors, or its President
knows this.

> > Is there someone who'd like to broach these questions with the XFree86
> > Project?  My mails seem to go unanswered.
> Don't mail them.  Mail the individual authors, perhaps?

Sure; it could be done.

> > At any rate, for any of the above where we can get the licensing
> > straightened out, I'd be happly to apply the relevant patches.  It may
> > be worth contacting Thomas Hellström and Luc Verhaegen to inquire as to
> > the provenance of their patches.
> Would it be worth contacting the others?

Given a few anecdotes since the relicensing, I'd say yes.

[1] Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.33.0402011100290.33766-100000@gpu1.srv.ualberta.ca>
[2] Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.33.0402041540010.26316-100000@gpu1.srv.ualberta.ca>

G. Branden Robinson                |     If you're handsome, it's flirting.
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     If you're a troll, it's sexual
branden@debian.org                 |     harassment.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     -- George Carlin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: