On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 04:34:06PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 03:22:48PM +0200, Krzysztof Hałasa wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > > > Putting the above line on a file _IS_ a legal declaration that the file > > > is released under GPL-2.0. It's pretty simple :) > > Greg, on a side note, the discussion originated from > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/m3r1gt5hzm.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx/. I'll > quote Krzysztof so the discussion doesn't get split across multiple > places: > > > > To spend time reviewing this code, I want to know it will be mergeable, > > > and that requires a SoB line. That's a blocker I'm afraid. > > > > So how do you propose to solve the situation, in which my driver is > > rejected, but another persor takes it, makes changes (btw breaking it), > > and presents it as their own, and it's accepted? This is a paid work and > > I'm required to put in my employer's copyright over the code. > > I could have made this error once - but no more. > > > > The code will be mergeable, as I already wrote. Why would I bother > > otherwise? But I cannot let that history to repeat itself. > > Your opinion on this would be valuable too. I would not waste my time on code that does not have a signed-off-by on it, otherwise the developer is obviously saying they do not want to merge this as-is. And I think we all have plenty of code from developers that actually want to have their patches merged. thanks, greg k-h
