Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:59:26PM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >> Markus Plessing wrote: >>> Fix compiler errors with recent net-next-2.6 for 2.6.33 >>> - Removed IRQInfo1 (as for irq_req_t) >>> - window_handle_t is now unsigned long instead of window_t* >>> - pcmcia_request_window needs now only a pointer, not pointer to pointer >>> - pass struct pcmcia_device pointer to pcmcia_map_mem_page >>> - Replaced cs_error function with dbg_err >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Markus Plessing <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> >>> Index: kernel/2.6/drivers/net/can/sja1000/ems_pcmcia.c >>> =================================================================== >>> --- kernel/2.6/drivers/net/can/sja1000/ems_pcmcia.c (Revision 1126) >>> +++ kernel/2.6/drivers/net/can/sja1000/ems_pcmcia.c (Arbeitskopie) >>> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ >>> /* >>> * Copyright (C) 2008 Sebastian Haas <[email protected]> >>> + * Copyright (C) 2010 Markus Plessing <[email protected]> >> I think we said that the modifications are not significant enough to >> claim authorship but it's fine if you change MODULE_AUTHOR as you >> overtake maintainer-chip. You seem to have understood the contrary. > > ? I think he got it right. MODULE_AUTHOR claims, well, authorship of the file. > Copyright may also be claimed for significant changes. One could argue, if > these changes are significant enough, but as both come from the same company, > it probably doesn't matter.
You are probably right. I got the impression that the MODULE_AUTHOR() is normally the maintainer but that's likely not OK from the legal point of view. I will apply the patch as is. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
