On 23-06-08 12:51, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Mon, 23 Jun 2008 02:22:13 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
On 19-06-08 23:07, Krzysztof Helt wrote:
From: Krzysztof Helt krzysztof.h1@wp.pl
Move the file sound/isa/cs423x/cs4231_lib.c into sound/isa/cs423x/wss_lib.c This is the first step toward merging all libraries for Windows Sound System compatible chips into a single library.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Helt krzysztof.h1@wp.pl
Acked-by: Rene Herman rene.herman@gmail.com
Only small request:
diff -urNp linux-alsa/sound/isa/wss/Makefile linux-mm/sound/isa/wss/Makefile --- linux-alsa/sound/isa/wss/Makefile 1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 +++ linux-mm/sound/isa/wss/Makefile 2008-06-15 22:38:44.705642447 +0200 @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ +# +# Makefile for ALSA +# Copyright (c) 2008 by Krzysztof Helt krzysztof.h1@wp.pl +#
+snd-wss-lib-objs := wss_lib.o
+# Toplevel Module Dependency +obj-$(CONFIG_SND_WSS_LIB) += snd-wss-lib.o
Could you maybe "donate" the copyright on this Makefile to Jaroslav Kysela?
Basically, this single file is too trivial (and uncreative due to being rather fully dictated by the build-system as a whole) to be protectable under copyright in the first place but the ALSA build system as a whole IS copyrightable and Jaroslav holds the copyright on all others (except David Miller on the one sparc specific one).
It's likely not a practical issue really but I feel it's probably good to keep this concentrated.
Well, I don't think it's worth to change the copyright as you suggest. First of all, it's Krzysztof's work. And, managing the different copyright notes isn't any problem in linux kernel tree at all, even from the maintenance POV.
Just my $0.02, though.
Yes, I sort of felt it wasn't really my place to make that comment but I keep around several directories privately here and thought about it before...
Now if I'm not mistaken I once saw that these ALSA makefile fragments are or were actually generated semi-automatically from the alsa-driver tree setup (which would also explain the very uniform 2001 copyright by Jaroslav) and as such replacing something that not has his own copyright header on it by one that does might be a bit awkward. And as said, in a legal sense, this is too trivial and uncreative to be copyrightable as a single file in the first place, whereas the build-system as a whole would be copyrightable (and is, by Jaroslav).
Now, admittedly, I might just need to be ignored as having thought about it too senselessly, and well, <shrug> and all, but any Makefile fragment I'd submit would have Jaroslav's copyright header on it. Ofcourse not on the code!
Rene.