On 10/25/22 02:34, Chris Mason wrote: > On 10/24/22 1:10 PM, David Sterba wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 11:25:04AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: >>> On 10/24/22 10:44 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 08:12:29AM +0000, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: >>>>> David, what's your plan to progress with this series? >>>> >>>> FYI, I object to merging any of my code into btrfs without a proper >>>> copyright notice, and I also need to find some time to remove my >>>> previous significant changes given that the btrfs maintainer >>>> refuses to take the proper and legally required copyright notice. >>>> >>>> So don't waste any of your time on this. >>> >>> Christoph's request is well within the norms for the kernel, given that >>> he's making substantial changes to these files. I talked this over with >>> GregKH, who pointed me at: >>> >>> https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/blog/copyright-notices-in-open-source-software-projects >>> >>> Even if we'd taken up some of the other policies suggested by this doc, >>> I'd still defer to preferences of developers who have made significant >>> changes. >> >> I've asked for recommendations or best practice similar to the SPDX >> process. Something that TAB can acknowledge and that is perhaps also >> consulted with lawyers. And understood within the linux project, >> not just that some dudes have an argument because it's all clear as mud >> and people are used to do things differently. > > The LF in general doesn't give legal advice, but the link above does > help describe common practices. > > It's up to us to bring in our own lawyers and make decisions about the > kinds of changes we're willing to accept. We could ask the TAB (btw, > I'm no longer on the TAB) to weigh in, but I think we'll find the normal > variety of answers based on subsystem. > > It's also up to contributors to decide on what kinds of requirements > they want to place on continued participation. Individuals and > corporations have their own preferences based on advice from their > lawyers, and as long as the change is significant, I think we can and > should honor their wishes. > > Does this mean going through and retroactively adding copyright lines? > I'd really rather not. If a major contributor comes in and shows a long > list of commits and asks for a copyright line, I personally would say yes. I am not aware of any long list of copyright holders in kernel source code files. I personally thought that the most common practice is to add a copyright notice for the creator (or his/her employer) of a new source file, or if for someone who almost completely rewrite a file. That is I think perfectly acceptable, as adding a new file generally means that a contribution is substantial. > >> >> The link from linux foundation blog is nice but unless this is codified >> into the process it's just somebody's blog post. Also there's a paragraph >> about "Why not list every copyright holder?" that covers several points >> why I don't want to do that. > > I'm also happy to gather advice about following the suggestions in the > LF post. I understand your concerns about listing every copyright > holder, but I don't think this has been a major problem in the kernel in > general. > >> >> But, if TAB says so I will do, perhaps spending hours of unproductive >> time looking up the whole history of contributors and adding year, name, >> company whatever to files. > > I can't imagine anyone asking you to spend time this way. > > -chris > -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
