>> Was it so necessary? > > Yes. >> Does Barebox really need this? > > Yes. Oh, these are exhaustive answers, thank you :) >> Or it's just blindly following the rules made by Linux project? > > It's irrelevant if BB follows this practice blindly, or with extensive > knowledge and understanding of all factors involved if the procedure > involved is believed to be legally sound > >> Do really small projects need to follow all such bureaucratic way rather than >> just growing up? > > Yes, project with identical licensing, regardless of their size, need > to adhere to certain legal procedures in order to have a good case if > they are ever in court. So this means that every GPL'ed hello-world.c project should follow Linux's rules "to have a good case if they are ever in court"? And If think in this way then Barebox should create a Barebox Foundation, hire a lawyer and wait until someone will sue them. But this is ridiculous, because Barebox don't need this! That's why there is no Barebox Foundation with lawyer. >> What if git history magically disappears? Only authors written in files will be fixed, >> but all authors of patches will disappear as well. So this SOB field is only >> valid while "git log" gives you something to read. > > I don't understand the point you are trying to make. SOB is just a matter of "git log". >> But that's for Linux - companies, billions of dollars... What about Barebox? > Same license, same rules. (see about GPL'ed hello-world.c) > Aleksey, I am not really interested in continuing this discussion or > trying to convince you to add SOB to your patch, so if any of the > above explanations are insufficient for you, I am afraid we are going > to have to agree to disagree on this subject. I asked a simple question - still no use case of SOB in Barebox. _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
