From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 14:44:09 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] openzwave: new package In-Reply-To: <20160425092535.3c606c2a@free-electrons.com> (Thomas Petazzoni's message of "Mon, 25 Apr 2016 09:25:35 +0200") References: <18817_1461334846_571A333E_18817_3477_2_e09544cf-8249-4083-9f10-e131ddeb87e0@OPEXCLILM6D.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20160423003957.215d1683@free-electrons.com> <4485_1461568414_571DC39E_4485_77_1_EEB3FED4859B6C488DDDEC4B2D3DE92B0FC5BBD4@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20160425092535.3c606c2a@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <87wpnlq2na.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni writes: Hi, > I am not sure how much strict we (the Buildroot community) want to be > regarding such confidentiality footers. After all, it only says "may > contain confidential or privileged information", which means that it > may also contain public information. I'm not sure what other > open-source projects are doing? Apparently at > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2013-December/050573.html, > the Linux MTD maintainer rejected a patch due to a confidentiality > footer. > Peter, Arnout, Yann, what's your position on this? IANAL, but personally I find the disclaimers ugly/noisy to look at but not bad enough to reject patches for it. > (http://www.economist.com/node/18529895 is an interesting article on > the matter, probably useful to share with the relevant folks in > Orange :-)) Yeah, indeed. -- Venlig hilsen, Peter Korsgaard