From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263735AbUEWXT7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 19:19:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263740AbUEWXT7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 19:19:59 -0400 Received: from mail.aei.ca ([206.123.6.14]:19431 "EHLO aeimail.aei.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263735AbUEWXT6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 19:19:58 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission From: Shane Shrybman To: torvalds@osdl.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1085354389.1142.39.camel@mars> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 19:19:50 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Linus, Since your intention is to produce a clearly documented path on where each patch came from so that in the event the "Crack Smokers" come at you for "stealing" code you have something to back up the community's claims of authorship. I am wondering if your proposal would be adequate legal protection. I am definitely not a lawyer, but it would be a tragedy if your proposal was adopted and in 10-15 years it was challenged and found not "to hold water" in the courts. I can just imagine some lawyer making an argument that this documentation trail is digital and therefore could be altered without leaving a trace or some other argument that lessens the integrity and legal value of the patch path information. Have you consulted with some liars about the legal fortitude of your proposal? What sort of legal protection will this provide in the event that it is needed? Just a thought. Regards, Shane