Re: consolidate btrfs checksumming, repair and bio splitting

Johannes Thumshirn
2022-10-27T13:54:18Z

On 26.10.22 13:41, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 07:36:45 +0000
> Johannes Thumshirn <Johannes.Thumshirn@wdc.com> wrote:
>
>> [+Cc Steven ]
>>
>> Steven, you're on the TAB, can you help with this issue?
>> Or bring it up with other TAB members?
>>
>
> Well, Chris Mason was recently the TAB chair.
>
>> Thanks :)
>>
>> Full quote below for reference:
>>
>> On 24.10.22 19:11, David Sterba wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 11:25:04AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
>>>> On 10/24/22 10:44 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 08:12:29AM +0000, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
>>>>>> David, what's your plan to progress with this series?
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI, I object to merging any of my code into btrfs without a proper
>>>>> copyright notice, and I also need to find some time to remove my
>>>>> previous significant changes given that the btrfs maintainer
>>>>> refuses to take the proper and legally required copyright notice.
>>>>>
>>>>> So don't waste any of your time on this.
>>>>
>>>> Christoph's request is well within the norms for the kernel, given that
>>>> he's making substantial changes to these files. I talked this over with
>>>> GregKH, who pointed me at:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/blog/copyright-notices-in-open-source-software-projects
>>>>
>>>> Even if we'd taken up some of the other policies suggested by this doc,
>>>> I'd still defer to preferences of developers who have made significant
>>>> changes.
>>>
>>> I've asked for recommendations or best practice similar to the SPDX
>>> process. Something that TAB can acknowledge and that is perhaps also
>>> consulted with lawyers. And understood within the linux project,
>>> not just that some dudes have an argument because it's all clear as mud
>>> and people are used to do things differently.
>>>
>>> The link from linux foundation blog is nice but unless this is codified
>>> into the process it's just somebody's blog post. Also there's a paragraph
>>> about "Why not list every copyright holder?" that covers several points
>>> why I don't want to do that.
>>>
>>> But, if TAB says so I will do, perhaps spending hours of unproductive
>>> time looking up the whole history of contributors and adding year, name,
>>> company whatever to files.
>
> There's no requirement to list every copyright holder, as most developers do
> not require it for acceptance. The issue I see here is that there's someone
> that does require it for you to accept their code.
>
> The policy is simple. If someone requires a copyright notice for their
> code, you simply add it, or do not take their code. You can be specific
> about what that code is that is copyrighted. Perhaps just around the code in
> question or a description at the top.
>
> Looking over the thread, I'm still confused at what the issue is. Is it
> that if you add one copyright notice you must do it for everyone else? Is
> everyone else asking for it? If not, just add the one and be done with it.

Thanks a lot Steve.