Re: [PATCH] nfsd: fix licensing header in filecache.c

From: Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfsd: fix licensing header in filecache.c
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:49:38 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <75DFFED3-D488-4005-AF44-230569897417@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <298bef5fa91630478e4815f9f797fb904455d873.camel@kernel.org>

> On Oct 31, 2022, at 9:48 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> 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