On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 08:25:37PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 11:40:28PM +0000, George Spelvin wrote: >> I understand that it's addressed more to patch authors than >> maintainers forwarding them, but I've read that thing a dozen times, >> and the description of S-o-b always seemed to be about copyright. > > It's to say that you didn't add anything which you shouldn't have, for > example, secret SCO UnixWare stuff. Yes, I'm familiar with the (irritating) history. Which is why I had the idea stuck in my head that that it was all about copyright and if you didn't add anything copyrightable, an S-o-b wasn't required. No more than I'd ask for one from the administrator of the e-mail system which delivered it. submitting-patches.rst says "sign your work". It didn't occur to me to sign something that wasn't my work. >> So I had assumed that edits which were below the de minimus standard >> of copyright didn't need a separate S-o-b. >> >> Am I right that there should be an S-o-b from everyone from the >> patch author to the patch committer (as recorded in git)? And the >> one exception is that we don't need S-o-b for git pulls after that, >> because the merge commits record the information? > > Yes. Also if people added their S-o-b for git merges it would change > the git hash for the patch which would suck. I understand the technical difficulties, but lawyers aren't always deterred by such things. :-) Seriously, it's clear there has to be an exception; the question was about the scope of the exception. Thank you for your patience clarifying this stuff for the nth time. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
