From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Nexus One Support Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:32:36 -0500 Message-ID: <1295663556.12215.4812.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> References: <20110121094827.41818a55@jbarnes-desktop> <20110121095658.1ab623fe@jbarnes-desktop> <1295632828.19880.22.camel@m0nster> <20110121100441.06a94482@jbarnes-desktop> <1295633882.19880.31.camel@m0nster> <1295642995.19880.42.camel@m0nster> <20110121234930.GK3043@thunk.org> <1295654593.22882.9.camel@m0nster> <20110122015821.GA6249@home.goodmis.org> <1295662437.22882.19.camel@m0nster> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.125]:63403 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750791Ab1AVCci (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:32:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1295662437.22882.19.camel@m0nster> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Walker Cc: Ted Ts'o , Pekka Enberg , Dima Zavin , Jesse Barnes , Joe Perches , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davidb@codeaurora.org On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 18:13 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 20:58 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 04:03:13PM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > > > right, but it wasn't a cherrypick which was explain in the thread. So > > > there's no wrongs here .. > > > > I'm sorry Daniel, but you are absolutely wrong! > > This thread is getting way out of hand .. I think you really don't > understand what has happened here.. That's fine tho, if you don't like > what I've done then NAK, I'm not going to argue with any you. Sorry for coming off a bit strong, but I've known you for a while, and that is usually the best way to get you to understand. I don't want to argue, but instead teach you that there is a process of getting code into the kernel, and a etiquette (not to mention legal) way of doing things. If you take code from someone else, look at it, and make it work, or do whatever changes to it. You must keep some form of authorship with the original author. If you rewrote it completely so that it doesn't look anything like what the original code was, then sure, its yours. But then the copyright would belong to you. But you stated that the copyright was not yours but googles. You are not employed by google are you? The major problem I have with these patches is that you got code from somewhere else but had no Signed-off-bys from anyone. This is where legal comes in. How do you know this code was attained legally? Can you take sole responsibility that the code was not stolen from non GPL code? The only tag line in a change log that matters is that Signed-off-by. Its the one with (sorta) legal powers. This is saying that you verify that this code was given to you through legal means. Either that you wrote the code yourself and are not under any contract to keep it from becoming GPL, or you took it from someone that gave you their own Signed-off-by that you can trust. The biggest problem with your patch set is that it is missing the necessary Signed-off-bys. Also, the only Signed-off-by that you can write is your own. Someone can give you their Signed-off-by and you can add it. There's been patches that I would not accept until the author gave me (usually publicly) their Signed-off-by. If you had those, I would not have written the email that I wrote. -- Steve From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rostedt@goodmis.org (Steven Rostedt) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:32:36 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 0/7] Nexus One Support In-Reply-To: <1295662437.22882.19.camel@m0nster> References: <20110121094827.41818a55@jbarnes-desktop> <20110121095658.1ab623fe@jbarnes-desktop> <1295632828.19880.22.camel@m0nster> <20110121100441.06a94482@jbarnes-desktop> <1295633882.19880.31.camel@m0nster> <1295642995.19880.42.camel@m0nster> <20110121234930.GK3043@thunk.org> <1295654593.22882.9.camel@m0nster> <20110122015821.GA6249@home.goodmis.org> <1295662437.22882.19.camel@m0nster> Message-ID: <1295663556.12215.4812.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 18:13 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 20:58 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 04:03:13PM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > > > right, but it wasn't a cherrypick which was explain in the thread. So > > > there's no wrongs here .. > > > > I'm sorry Daniel, but you are absolutely wrong! > > This thread is getting way out of hand .. I think you really don't > understand what has happened here.. That's fine tho, if you don't like > what I've done then NAK, I'm not going to argue with any you. Sorry for coming off a bit strong, but I've known you for a while, and that is usually the best way to get you to understand. I don't want to argue, but instead teach you that there is a process of getting code into the kernel, and a etiquette (not to mention legal) way of doing things. If you take code from someone else, look at it, and make it work, or do whatever changes to it. You must keep some form of authorship with the original author. If you rewrote it completely so that it doesn't look anything like what the original code was, then sure, its yours. But then the copyright would belong to you. But you stated that the copyright was not yours but googles. You are not employed by google are you? The major problem I have with these patches is that you got code from somewhere else but had no Signed-off-bys from anyone. This is where legal comes in. How do you know this code was attained legally? Can you take sole responsibility that the code was not stolen from non GPL code? The only tag line in a change log that matters is that Signed-off-by. Its the one with (sorta) legal powers. This is saying that you verify that this code was given to you through legal means. Either that you wrote the code yourself and are not under any contract to keep it from becoming GPL, or you took it from someone that gave you their own Signed-off-by that you can trust. The biggest problem with your patch set is that it is missing the necessary Signed-off-bys. Also, the only Signed-off-by that you can write is your own. Someone can give you their Signed-off-by and you can add it. There's been patches that I would not accept until the author gave me (usually publicly) their Signed-off-by. If you had those, I would not have written the email that I wrote. -- Steve