From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FC5FC2BA15 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2020 18:16:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32ACB2070E for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2020 18:16:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726327AbgDDSQO (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Apr 2020 14:16:14 -0400 Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.20]:63353 "EHLO mx.sdf.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726222AbgDDSQO (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Apr 2020 14:16:14 -0400 Received: from sdf.org (IDENT:lkml@faeroes.freeshell.org [205.166.94.9]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id 034IFgcI029629 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Sat, 4 Apr 2020 18:15:42 GMT Received: (from lkml@localhost) by sdf.org (8.15.2/8.12.8/Submit) id 034IFfdc000897; Sat, 4 Apr 2020 18:15:41 GMT Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2020 18:15:41 +0000 From: George Spelvin To: Dan Carpenter Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Ajay.Kathat@microchip.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Adham.Abozaeid@microchip.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net, lkml@sdf.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] staging: wilc1000: Use crc7 in lib/ rather than a private copy Message-ID: <20200404181541.GC11944@SDF.ORG> References: <20200326152251.19094-1-ajay.kathat@microchip.com> <20200402082745.GG2001@kadam> <20200402153034.GB2013@SDF.ORG> <20200403091029.GC2001@kadam> <20200403234028.GA11944@SDF.ORG> <20200404172537.GI2066@kadam> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200404172537.GI2066@kadam> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 08:25:37PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 11:40:28PM +0000, George Spelvin wrote: >> I understand that it's addressed more to patch authors than >> maintainers forwarding them, but I've read that thing a dozen times, >> and the description of S-o-b always seemed to be about copyright. > > It's to say that you didn't add anything which you shouldn't have, for > example, secret SCO UnixWare stuff. Yes, I'm familiar with the (irritating) history. Which is why I had the idea stuck in my head that that it was all about copyright and if you didn't add anything copyrightable, an S-o-b wasn't required. No more than I'd ask for one from the administrator of the e-mail system which delivered it. submitting-patches.rst says "sign your work". It didn't occur to me to sign something that wasn't my work. >> So I had assumed that edits which were below the de minimus standard >> of copyright didn't need a separate S-o-b. >> >> Am I right that there should be an S-o-b from everyone from the >> patch author to the patch committer (as recorded in git)? And the >> one exception is that we don't need S-o-b for git pulls after that, >> because the merge commits record the information? > > Yes. Also if people added their S-o-b for git merges it would change > the git hash for the patch which would suck. I understand the technical difficulties, but lawyers aren't always deterred by such things. :-) Seriously, it's clear there has to be an exception; the question was about the scope of the exception. Thank you for your patience clarifying this stuff for the nth time.