From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann E. MORIN Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 17:53:01 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/3] libamcodec: new Package In-Reply-To: References: <20160601102720.3929-1-daggs@gmx.com> <20160601141655.5649aa21@free-electrons.com> <20160601230533.04ca63d0@free-electrons.com> <20160604150259.0fc51f8c@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20160604155301.GE3852@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Daggs, All, On 2016-06-04 17:02 +0200, daggs spake thusly: > > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 23:16:36 +0200, daggs wrote: > > > I see, I'll keep posting patches, if they are rejected because I'm using only my first name, then let it be. > > > I value my privacy more than I value my support for open-sourcing. > > > I don't mind if someone comes along and resends them as his own, I want to contribute but there is a limitation to what I'm willing sacrifice. > > > > On the other hand, a very simple Google/DuckDuckGo search shows up your > > real name. If you really wanted to be anonymous, you should have never > > used your real name, or alternatively change your e-mail address when > > going anonymous. > > > > See for example http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.alsa.devel/114494. > > I didn't said I wanted to be anonymous, I just didn't wanted to share my full name. > I'm well aware it can be found by searching the net. I cannot change the past. I'm however entitled to change the way I tick when I think it is needed. > e.g. the fact I used to do something in the past, doesn't means I need to continue do it forever. The problem is that we can't take patches from anonymous or pseudonyms. We can't take patches from people that do not use their real name, or only use part of their name. The reason for the SoB lines are that we need to be able to identify who submits a patch. We need traceability. For a brief (and incomplete) history about the SoB lines, remember the SCO vs. Linux dispute [0]. So, Linus proposed [1] that every author of a patch actually "signs off" the patch, to prove the origin of the code, by introducing the DCO. The goal of the DCO, and the SoB lines defined therein, is to ensure that the person that submits code is authorised to do so, accept that the code is contributed under the same license (or a compatible license) as that of the project. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO/Linux_controversies [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/86436/ Sp, please use your real name when you submit patches. Otherwise, we won't be able to apply them. And, as you said, "if someone comes along and resends them as his own" is not possible either. Note that I entirely understand your concern about the way you want to identify yourself. This is a totally understandable situation. I do not ask you to change the way you identify yourself. However, if the way you identify yourself is in contradiction with our requirements, either you change your identity, or we can't use your changes. In the meantime, I'll mark your patches as "Rejected" in our patchwork. Regards, Yann E. MORIN. -- .-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'