| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
A brief look at IBM's counterclaimsA brief look at IBM's counterclaimsPosted Aug 8, 2003 5:00 UTC (Fri) by mbp (guest, #2737)In reply to: A brief look at IBM's counterclaims by coriordan Parent article: A brief look at IBM's counterclaims The header file to which you refer was borrowed from glibc, and therefore (C) the FSF. I don't know why anyone would assign copyrights to the FSF for kernel work, since the FSF is not particularly involved with the Linux kernel. I suppose they wouldn't say no if you wanted to... IBM has contributed code both under corporate and personal copyrights. (Try grepping for ibm.com addresses.)
(Log in to post comments)
A brief look at IBM's counterclaims Posted Aug 10, 2003 1:33 UTC (Sun) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] > IBM has contributed code both under corporate and personal copyrightsbut the question is: If FSF owns the copyright, the file has to say so.
A brief look at IBM's counterclaims Posted Aug 10, 2003 23:59 UTC (Sun) by garloff (subscriber, #319) [Link] > but the question is:> where's all this code that IBM gave FSF the copyrights of? > (some say FSF own all of IBMs contributions, I heard FSF owns the s390 > port, the Linux source doesn't confirm any of this.) For a port you need gcc and glibc support as well. Contributions to these projects obviously need to be done by assigning the copyright to FSF.
A brief look at IBM's counterclaims Posted Aug 11, 2003 0:24 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] ah, yes. A quick grep of the glibc sources shows that the contents of the s390 folders are copyright FSF.thanks garloff. Ciaran O'Riordan
|
|
||||||||||||