From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 14:13:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 14:13:36 -0400 Received: from t2.redhat.com ([199.183.24.243]:22002 "EHLO passion.cambridge.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 14:13:23 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3 01/15/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 From: David Woodhouse X-Accept-Language: en_GB In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Alan Cox , chuckw@altaserv.net, Vipin Malik , Aaron Lehmann , jffs-dev@axis.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Cosmetic JFFS patch. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:13:08 +0100 Message-ID: <11977.993751988@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org torvalds@transmeta.com said: > I consider them harmful when I start getting annoying patches that > start adding more and more of them. > Which is how this whole thread started. Sort of. The point of the patch which started this thread was as a wake-up call to a company who had taken the code, renamed it to appear as their own, commented out the version and copyright printk, and shipped it to their customers in an RPM which claimed it was proprietary code. That wake-up call served its primary purpose quite effectively. The new line was added simply to ensure that if such a thing happens again, the newly-named copyright holder will be in a position to do something about it. Take them all out if you must. I stand by my prediction. -- dwmw2