Hello,
On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 09:35:18AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 11:48:22AM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 08:46:52AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > Hello David,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:54:19PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 09:08:59AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > > fdtoverlay doesn't have a -t option, so explaining the type formats and
> > > > > modifier prefixes doesn't make much sense.
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > I was unsure if I'm supposed to add a signed-off-by line. It's not
> > > > > formalized in the git repo, so I assume it won't have any juristical
> > > > > semantic anyhow and I didn't add it.
> > > >
> > > > It's true we've never formalized this, but I do generally prefer S-o-b
> > > > lines to be present.
> > > >
> > > > The patch LGTM, so if you could resent with the signoff I'll apply.
> > >
> > > Then I wonder about the semantic of the Signed-off-by for dtc. Do you
> > > believe it has any juristical effect if you don't give it an explicit
> > > meaning for the project? INAL, but it feels wrong to me to insist on a
> > > formalism but not having formalized its meaning.
> >
> > Well, I'm not really sure what you mean by "juristical effect".
>
> For kernel patches (and quite a few other projects that adopted the
> "Developer's Certificate of Origin", I'd expect that as a maintainer or
> user of the project you can assume that there are no license problems
> with the contribution.
>
> > AFAIK the S-o-b lines never have any legal force, as such - they're
> > just a form of documentation that helps to locate the right people to
> > contact if legal questions show up in future.
>
> Even without S-o-b I'm listed in the Author line, isn't that enough for
> providing a point of contact?
This patch wasn't applied and the S-o-b discussion just died.
In my eyes the options here are:
a) just apply the patch as is
b) formalize the meaning of S-o-b and then I can resend with my
signature (assuming I agree to the formalization).
I don't have a strong opinion here, but my favourite would be a) as it's
less work for me.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
