From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753044Ab2C0QHe (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:07:34 -0400 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:37185 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750978Ab2C0QHd (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:07:33 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:07:14 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett To: Andrew Morton Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Daniel Drake , mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dilinger@queued.net, pgf@laptop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86, olpc: add debugfs interface for EC commands Message-ID: <20120327160714.GA8398@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20120326180710.8DF9C9D401E@zog.reactivated.net> <20120326142908.c5248aec.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4F70E042.4020703@zytor.com> <20120326145146.23fde0db.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120326145146.23fde0db.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@cavan.codon.org.uk X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on cavan.codon.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 02:51:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Well, if a person had any contribution at all, we should seek their > Signed-off-by:. Otherwise they could say "hey, you admitted using my > code but I did not authorise its use", or any other range of bad IANAL > things? The Certificate of Origin says: (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 If a previous author has given a Signed-off-by then they've clearly indicated that their code is under an appropriate license and may be submitted to the kernel. If someone else then takes that code, modifies it and submits it then there's no obvious reason why we still need the original Signed-off-by. Giving credit to the original author is obviously appropriate, but I don't see why we need any more than that. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org