On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Fredrik Gustafsson <iveqy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:08:21PM +0200, Antoine Pelisse wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Brandon Casey <bcasey@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain >> > confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution >> > is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by >> > reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> I'm certainly not a lawyer, and I'm sorry for not reviewing the >> content of the patch instead, but is that not a problem from a legal >> point of view ? > > Talking about legal, is it a problem if a commit isn't signed-off by > it's committer or author e-mail? Like in this case where the sign-off is > from gmail.com and the committer from nvidia.com? It never has been. My commits should have the author and committer set to my gmail address actually. Others have sometimes used the two fields to distinguish between a corporate identity (i.e. me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) that represents the funder of the work and a canonical identity (me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) that identifies the person that performed the work. -Brandon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html