Hi Krzysztof, CC'ing Greg to get his expert opinion on the topic. On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 06:57:55AM +0200, Krzysztof Hałasa wrote: > Hi Kieran, and others, > > Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >>> The work is not published under GPL. > > > > This seems like an odd thing to say when your patch explicitly contains: > > > >> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ar0521.c > >> @@ -0,0 +1,1060 @@ > >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > Such tags have meaning only in the kernel context, when signed-off etc. > Alone, they aren't legal statements, especially when I explicitly state > that it's not signed-off-by me yet. Nevertheless... > > Obviously, this code was always meant to be GPLed and it seems really > crazy to me that we even have to have such conversations - about > a non issue, at least from my POV. > > The fact is that 6 years ago I wrote driver for a SDTV frame grabber - > and another developer "took" the development from me, and published as > his own. This wasn't probably illegal - after all my driver was covered > by the GPL from the start. But was it really how we all want things to > work in Linux? With such experience, is anybody surprised I want to > avoid this history repeating itself? > > For other patches I don't care about such formalities, but this driver > is a work paid by an external entity and it would be unfortunate to > end up the same way as the tw686x driver. > > > I stated multiple times I will sign this code off when it's accepted. > Is it really a problem? Really? > > If so... perhaps there is some other way? > > I'd hate to think that the next time I'm to keep my code unpublished. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
