On Nov 2, 2022, at 12:29 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 12:00:22AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> It really comes down to how badly do you want Christoph's code? > > Well, Dave has made it clear implicily that he doesn't seem to care about > it at all through all this. The painful part is that I need to come up > with a series to revert all the code that he refused to add the notice > for, which is quite involved and includes various bug fixes. This may be an unpopular opinion for some, but since all of these previous contributions to the kernel are under GPL, there is no "taking back the older commits" from the btrfs code. There is also no basis to prevent the use/merge/rework or other modifications to GPL code, whether it is part of btrfs or anywhere else in the kernel. That is one of the strengths of the GPL, is that you can't "take it back" after code has been released. I don't think anything David has done has violated the terms of the GPL itself. David, as btrfs maintainer, doesn't even *have* to accept the patches to revert changes to the btrfs code branch. The only real option for Christoph would be to chose not to contribute new fixes to btrfs in the future. That said, it doesn't make sense to get into a pissing fight about this. The best solution here is for Christoph and David to come to an amicable agreement on what copyright notices that David might accept into the btrfs code. Cheers, Andreas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
