From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264965AbUEYQmf (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2004 12:42:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264968AbUEYQme (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2004 12:42:34 -0400 Received: from host-65-117-135-105.timesys.com ([65.117.135.105]:30888 "EHLO kartuli.timesys") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264965AbUEYQmc (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2004 12:42:32 -0400 Message-ID: <40B37795.6060207@timesys.com> Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 12:43:01 -0400 From: "La Monte H.P. Yarroll" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, de-de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission References: <40B369D5.7070805@timesys.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: >On Tue, 25 May 2004, La Monte H.P. Yarroll wrote: > > >>Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> >> >>>The plan is to make this very light-weight, and to fit in with how we >>>already pass patches around - just add the sign-off to the end of the >>>explanation part of the patch. That sign-off would be just a single line >>>at the end (possibly after _other_ peoples sign-offs), saying: >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Random J Developer >>> >>> >>To avoid the requirement of all submissions going through a single person, >>we have a system of formal authorizations. Specific people are authorized >>to release certain classes of work. Would the community object to a slight >>modifications to the Signed-off-by lines from TimeSys? E.g. >> >>Signed-off-by: La Monte H.P. Yarroll under TS00062 >> >>This completes the traceability path all the way back to the VP who signed >>off on TS00062. >> >> > >I think this is great. In general, I think people who want to add their >own extra tags after their email address should be able to do so. We might >even have a few standard tags for things like asking for acknowledgement >etc. > > Thanks. >>I THINK I have a case not covered here. I sometimes need to post >>unpublished work done by other people at my company. Since the work is >>not yet published, the GPL doesn't really grant me any special rights. >>The authorization I use to publish is in fact NOT an open source >>license. I think clause (b) could probably be weakened to cover my case. >> >> > >I think the "(unless I am permitted to submit under a different license)" >part already covers that, but yes, if we want to get really technically >anal about it we migth spell it out. > > It's an occupational hazzard for me--I talk to lawyers too much :-). Let me see if I can get a blessed recommendation for rephrasing clause (b). I don't think the authorizations I work with qualify as licenses. >>I'd like to include a link between the external path and our internal >>procedures. >> >> > >Would the extra tag at the end be sufficient for that, or are you talking >about something more? > > The extra tag suffices. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell's sig