Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. I would want it be be merged as-is, and would happily supply a SOB, but nobody would merge it at this point. This isn't a problem, though. > And I think we all have plenty of code from > developers that actually want to have their patches merged. Oh well. I want to have *MY* patch merged. That's exactly why I did what I did. I did state that I will sign if off when I get positive response, when the patch is ready to be merged. Isn't it clear? I almost always sign off my patches. However, this is a specific situation. Few years ago I published a patch for the same subsystem. Obviously signed it off etc. It was exactly my SOB that caused it to be *NOT* merged. Not because it was really bad or something, but because another developer modified it and the modified patch was given priority. I didn't object to the modified driver, in fact. I only wanted it to go through the same process as all other patches, on top of my original code, to see if it had merit. Guess what. After all I was told that I had abandoned the code, but it was summer, I had vacations. I'm starting vacations in a couple of days as well, will 3 weeks of my absence mean abandonment again? drivers/media is a fast moving target, catching up will take some time as well. Abandonment? Should anyone be surprised that I don't want this story to repeat itself? Or, maybe, it's just me. Maybe such actions are good and welcome among Linux developers? Please answer. >> Why not? I can put such a text on a book (say, an e-book) as well. > > Where would that text be and what would it mean? Does it matter? It would be on something that is not a part of the kernel. That's the point - the SPDX tags may have a lot of meaning in the kernel, and none outside of it. I can write SPDX-* on a wall of my home and it doesn't mean it's now a public house. It was just said that drivers written specifically for Linux (but not derived from GPLed code) are automatically under GPL. They don't, for the same reason - the GPL can't define it's scope (nor it claims to); the author/owner has to do it. At least, it works like that in my country. >> > S-o-b is a DIFFERENT thing entirely. Please go read the DCO for what >> > you are agreeing to there, it is a declaration for what you are doing. >> >> Well, that's my position. > > That's not what a signed-off-by means, please do not try to make it > something it is not. What do you mean? Chris. -- Krzysztof Hałasa Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz Przemysłowy Instytut Automatyki i Pomiarów PIAP Al. Jerozolimskie 202, 02-486 Warszawa
