From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: bcm53xx: (re)license code to the GPL v2 Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:04:54 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20161229191313.21577-1-zajec5@gmail.com> <086e2171-944b-8dee-3b87-abd0e422f637@milecki.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= , Vaishali Thakkar , Nicholas Mc Guire , Hauke Mehrtens , Mark Brown , Joe Perches , Axel Lin , linux-spi To: Han Jingoo Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-spi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: On 30 December 2016 at 05:30, Han Jingoo wrote: > Thank you for sending me the patch. > Your patch looks good. > > But, I am not a maintainer for this bcm53xx SPI driver. > So, I think that my reviewed-by is enough, instead of my acked-by. > However, you can select either one. > > Reviewed-by: Jingoo Han > or > Acked-by: Jingoo Han According to the Documentation/development-process/5.Posting.rst this "Acked-by" is *often* used by maintainers, but it isn't a requirement. It also "indicates an agreement" which should be clear enough for (re)licensing code. So I think it's justified to use "Acked-by" in this case. I can also see similar usage of it in "git log" of kernel source so I hope it's really OK :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html