From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] pinctrl: tegra: add suspend/resume support Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 17:38:38 -0700 Message-ID: <51353E8E.5020700@wwwdotorg.org> References: <5097F013.8070002@wwwdotorg.org> <1352165844-4837-1-git-send-email-digetx@gmail.com> <50988701.5080602@wwwdotorg.org> <50990BE0.9040507@gmail.com> <50994AFB.8000802@wwwdotorg.org> <50996DCC.8030508@gmail.com> <509984F9.1060508@wwwdotorg.org> <513538BC.5070706@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <513538BC.5070706-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Dmitry Osipenko Cc: linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On 03/04/2013 05:13 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > 07.11.2012 01:45, Stephen Warren =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: >> On 11/06/2012 01:06 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >>> 06.11.2012 21:38, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>> OK, so only you and he have the binaries built from this repositor= y? Or, >>>> are those binaries distributed to other people too? If the binarie= s are >>>> distributed, you need to distribute (or offer to make available) t= he >>>> source too. See the GPL for exact requirements. >>> >>> I'm not against GPL, but for now repo is private. It's something li= ke nvidia's >>> private downstream kernel that I'm working on. Surely it will becom= e public but >>> bit later. >>> >>>> OK, so if I accept the private repo link, download the source, and >>>> repost it on my github account, you're fine with that? If not, the= n >>>> you're requesting something semantically equivalent to an NDA. >>> >>> For me it's not very important, but my companion may be unhappy wit= h that. I >>> just believe that you are not so evil. As I understand NDA should b= e some >>> legally valid official document. I'm sure you are much better in th= is than me, >>> so let's stop discussing it. >>> >>>> However, I'd ask that we resolve the distribution issues of the so= urce >>>> kernel first to avoid any tainting of the patch. >>> >>> I don't see any issues. It's my personal work that I'm contributing= to the >>> kernel community. If nvidia is against of any public contributions = just tell me. >> >> NVIDIA and indeed the kernel community welcome public contributions. >> >> However, the rules in SubmittingPatches (as set by the kernel commun= ity, >> not NVIDIA) are clear re: the licensing requirements for patches. If >> you're taking the patches from a downstream kernel that's published = as >> binaries and not source, I believe that makes the patches non-compli= ant >> (since there's a GPL violation in the downstream kernel, so the patc= hes >> can't be passed off as being GPL compliant), and hence your >> signed-off-by line is not valid. >> >> Once the downstream kernel's source is publicly available, I imagine >> there will be no problem accepting patches that are derived from it. >> >=20 > Hello, Stephen. I made my recent work on kernel public and it's avail= able > at https://bitbucket.org/digetx/picasso-kernel/ It contains all patch= es that > I have sent and has some small fixes that I will send later. Hope the= re is no > problem anymore and you would like to continue reviewing my patches. Sure. So long as you've read Documentation/SubmittingPatches, and fully understood exactly what Signed-off-by means and the GPL, I have no problem taking patches. It's been a while, so I'd suggest reposting any patches.