Signed-off-by: Antonio R. Costa antonio.costa@atmel.com
diff --git a/board/atmel/at572d940hfeb/atmel_mci.c b/board/atmel/at572d940hfeb/atmel_mci.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..065a85b --- /dev/null +++ b/board/atmel/at572d940hfeb/atmel_mci.c @@ -0,0 +1,869 @@ +/*
- (C) Copyright 2008 Atmel Corporation
- Antonio R. Costa <antonio.costa <at> atmel.com>
<costa.antonior <at> gmail.com>
The U-Boot AT91 MCI driver is no longer the exclusive work of Atmel. So, I do not believe that a sole Atmel copyright is correct for the AT91 MCI driver.
I added MMC 4.x support to the AT91 MCI driver a while back. In response to a request for AT91 MMC 4.x support, I submitted it to the list in the form of an informal patch against u-boot-1.1.5_atmel1.2 on April 29, 2008. Without much effort, I can see that much of the code that I added is still in the various files of the AT91 MCI driver, but my company's copyright has been removed. (Please note that I never removed anyone else's copyright.)
I'm not implying that Antonio removed my company's copyright notice, since I don't know exactly when the copyright was removed.
However, when someone adds a significant amount of code to a source file of a free software (GNU GPL licensed) project, isn't it a reasonable expectation that their copyright would be respected and thus not removed?
Can someone please clarify how copyright of derivative works is handled within the U-Boot source code trees? For example, how much source code needs to be added/modified/removed to justify a copyright notice for the changes?
Thanks,
Ken Fuchs