From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751405AbWFPODz (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:03:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751407AbWFPODz (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:03:55 -0400 Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:64483 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751405AbWFPODy (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:03:54 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:03:34 -0400 From: Theodore Tso To: Randy Dunlap Cc: Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bcollins@ubuntu.com, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: reviewing Ubuntu kernel patches Message-ID: <20060616140334.GA24491@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso , Randy Dunlap , Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bcollins@ubuntu.com, akpm@osdl.org References: <44909A1D.3030404@oracle.com> <1150386150.2987.9.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44924425.1040501@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44924425.1040501@oracle.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 10:39:49PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > Certainly a good question IMO. If Andrew or Linus knows whether > I need to add my Signed-off-by, I'll be glad to listen. > (That's not a general call for opinions.) If you're submitting the patch, then surely you need to add your Signed-off-by:, since you're asserting either (b) or (c): (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source license and I have the right under that license to submit that work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part by me, under the same open source license (unless I am permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated in the file; or (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified it. We've gotten into the habit of assuming the Signed-off-by: also has the meaning of "I vouch for it from technical point of view", but really, that's presumably true since otherwise you wouldn't have e-mailed it to Andrew or Linus. The original meaning of the Signed-off-by: is in the Developer's Certificate of Origin statement... - Ted