* [PATCH 0/4] copyleft-next: first set of patches @ 2012-07-12 0:44 Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-07-12 0:44 ` [PATCH 1/4] copyleft-next: remove issue tracker references Luis R. Rodriguez ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2012-07-12 0:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Fontana; +Cc: Bradley M. Kuhn, linux-kernel, Luis R. Rodriguez From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> Fontana, Here is my first series of patches against the new copyleft-next.git project [0]. These patches consists of a few cosmetic changes along with the idea of embracing the usage of the Signed-off-by tag. I've decided to use lkml given since there is no mailing list set up yet and I could not think of a more public mailing list I could use. Maybe we could just use it for now, what's a little more lkml spam ? I've decided to Cc bkuhn, perhaps he doesn't want to be, but oh well, he knows a lot on these matters. [0] git://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next.git Luis R. Rodriguez (4): copyleft-next: remove issue tracker references copyleft-next: more project name updates Copyleft.next->copyleft-next copyleft-next: rename the file COPYLEFT.next to copyleft-next copyleft-next: embrace the Signed-off-by practice ABOUT | 10 ++++----- CONTRIBUTING | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ COPYLEFT.next => copyleft-next | 6 +++--- 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) rename COPYLEFT.next => copyleft-next (99%) -- 1.7.10.rc1.22.gf5241 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/4] copyleft-next: remove issue tracker references 2012-07-12 0:44 [PATCH 0/4] copyleft-next: first set of patches Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2012-07-12 0:44 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-07-12 0:44 ` [PATCH 2/4] copyleft-next: more project name updates Copyleft.next->copyleft-next Luis R. Rodriguez ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2012-07-12 0:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Fontana; +Cc: Bradley M. Kuhn, linux-kernel, Luis R. Rodriguez From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> This uses github, lets not confuse the focus for development for now. --- CONTRIBUTING | 13 +------------ 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING b/CONTRIBUTING index 1db3cd2..d06f5da 100644 --- a/CONTRIBUTING +++ b/CONTRIBUTING @@ -47,15 +47,4 @@ Public Source Locations ======================= Gitorious (https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next) is now the centralized -location of source for this project. It will be mirrored at a GitHub -repo (currently https://github.com/richardfontana/Copyleft.next) for -the time being, and perhaps indefinitely. - - -Issue Tracking -============== - -The issue tracker associated with -https://github.com/richardfontana/Copyleft.next shall be kept open for the -time being, but at some point it is likely to be disabled. - +location of source for this project. -- 1.7.10.rc1.22.gf5241 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/4] copyleft-next: more project name updates Copyleft.next->copyleft-next 2012-07-12 0:44 [PATCH 0/4] copyleft-next: first set of patches Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-07-12 0:44 ` [PATCH 1/4] copyleft-next: remove issue tracker references Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2012-07-12 0:44 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-07-12 0:44 ` [PATCH 3/4] copyleft-next: rename the file COPYLEFT.next to copyleft-next Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-07-12 0:44 ` [PATCH 4/4] copyleft-next: embrace the Signed-off-by practice Luis R. Rodriguez 3 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2012-07-12 0:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Fontana; +Cc: Bradley M. Kuhn, linux-kernel, Luis R. Rodriguez From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> This reflects the present gitorious.org name and reflects better with other foo-next git trees out there. --- ABOUT | 10 +++++----- COPYLEFT.next | 6 +++--- 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/ABOUT b/ABOUT index 0e8ce0b..791000f 100644 --- a/ABOUT +++ b/ABOUT @@ -1,15 +1,15 @@ -Copyleft.next +copyleft-next ============= "Exploring ideas for a modified copyleft license can't hurt." - Richard M. Stallman, July 2012 -Copyleft.next is an experimental "-ng"-type modification of the GNU +copyleft-next is an experimental "-ng"-type modification of the GNU General Public License, version 3. (It is *not* a fork.) Contributions of patches, ideas, and criticism are welcome. The goal of this effort is to develop an improved strong copyleft free software license. Needless to say, no one should actually *use* a development -version of Copyleft.next as an actual license. Anyone interested in +version of copyleft-next as an actual license. Anyone interested in actually *using* a strong copyleft license for code will wish to use one or more of the following licenses: GNU GPLv2, GNU GPLv3, GNU AGPLv3, and/or later versions of those licenses. For more information, @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ with (e.g.) Red Hat, or any other corporate entity.** Contributors are expected to participate in their individual capacity. All communications with journalists shall be handled by the -Copyleft.next Marketing Committee, which does not exist yet and +copyleft-next Marketing Committee, which does not exist yet and probably won't exist for at least another year or three. For the avoidance of doubt, Simon Phipps is not considered a journalist. @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ existing (and future) versions of the GNU GPL, which addresses one of the FSF's concerns about modified versions of the GNU GPL. The meta-license from the FSF stated in its FAQ shall be the license -of all versions of the Copyleft.next license text (to the extent that +of all versions of the copyleft-next license text (to the extent that such versions retain any copyrightable material from versions of the GNU GPL in which the FSF has asserted copyright). Based on the FSF FAQ, that meta-license may be stated as follows: diff --git a/COPYLEFT.next b/COPYLEFT.next index a741985..1afa01e 100644 --- a/COPYLEFT.next +++ b/COPYLEFT.next @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ - Copyleft.next + copyleft-next 0. Definitions. @@ -392,9 +392,9 @@ survive such relicensing. 14. New Versions of this License. The initial License Steward is [?]. The License Steward may publish -new versions of Copyleft.next. Each version will be given a +new versions of copyleft-next. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number. You may distribute a Covered Work under -the terms of the version of Copyleft.next under which the Program is +the terms of the version of copyleft-next under which the Program is licensed, or under the terms of any subsequent version published by the License Steward. -- 1.7.10.rc1.22.gf5241 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 3/4] copyleft-next: rename the file COPYLEFT.next to copyleft-next 2012-07-12 0:44 [PATCH 0/4] copyleft-next: first set of patches Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-07-12 0:44 ` [PATCH 1/4] copyleft-next: remove issue tracker references Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-07-12 0:44 ` [PATCH 2/4] copyleft-next: more project name updates Copyleft.next->copyleft-next Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2012-07-12 0:44 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-07-12 0:44 ` [PATCH 4/4] copyleft-next: embrace the Signed-off-by practice Luis R. Rodriguez 3 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2012-07-12 0:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Fontana; +Cc: Bradley M. Kuhn, linux-kernel, Luis R. Rodriguez From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> Also update the CONTRIBUTING to reflect the new file name change. --- CONTRIBUTING | 2 +- COPYLEFT.next => copyleft-next | 0 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) rename COPYLEFT.next => copyleft-next (100%) diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING b/CONTRIBUTING index d06f5da..8f214b1 100644 --- a/CONTRIBUTING +++ b/CONTRIBUTING @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ Contributions of any sort (text suggestions, ideas, feedback, criticism) from all interested individuals are welcome and encouraged. -All original contributions to Copyleft.next are dedicated to the +All original contributions to copyleft-next are dedicated to the public domain to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, pursuant to CC0. See CC0 for further details. diff --git a/COPYLEFT.next b/copyleft-next similarity index 100% rename from COPYLEFT.next rename to copyleft-next -- 1.7.10.rc1.22.gf5241 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 4/4] copyleft-next: embrace the Signed-off-by practice 2012-07-12 0:44 [PATCH 0/4] copyleft-next: first set of patches Luis R. Rodriguez ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2012-07-12 0:44 ` [PATCH 3/4] copyleft-next: rename the file COPYLEFT.next to copyleft-next Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2012-07-12 0:44 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-07-12 15:27 ` Ted Ts'o 3 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2012-07-12 0:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Fontana; +Cc: Bradley M. Kuhn, linux-kernel, Luis R. Rodriguez From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> The idea is taken from Linus Torvald's subsurface project [0] README file. The Signed-off-by is widely used in public projects and we stand to gain to make its usage more prevalent. The meaning of the Signed-off-by is borrowed from the Linux kernel's. [0] git://github.com/torvalds/subsurface.git Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> --- CONTRIBUTING | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+) diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING b/CONTRIBUTING index 8f214b1..966366c 100644 --- a/CONTRIBUTING +++ b/CONTRIBUTING @@ -5,6 +5,36 @@ All original contributions to copyleft-next are dedicated to the public domain to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, pursuant to CC0. See CC0 for further details. +Please either send me signed-off patches or a pull request with +signed-off commits. If you don't sign off on them, I will not accept +them. This means adding a line that says "Signed-off-by: Name <email>" +at the end of each commit, indicating that you wrote the code and have +the right to pass it on as an open source patch. + +See: http://gerrit.googlecode.com/svn/documentation/2.0/user-signedoffby.html + +Also, please write good git commit messages. A good commit message +looks like this: + + Header line: explaining the commit in one line + + Body of commit message is a few lines of text, explaining things + in more detail, possibly giving some background about the issue + being fixed, etc etc. + + The body of the commit message can be several paragraphs, and + please do proper word-wrap and keep columns shorter than about + 74 characters or so. That way "git log" will show things + nicely even when it's indented. + + Reported-by: whoever-reported-it + Signed-off-by: Your Name <youremail@yourhost.com> + +where that header line really should be meaningful, and really should be +just one line. That header line is what is shown by tools like gitk and +shortlog, and should summarize the change in one readable line of text, +independently of the longer explanation. + Contributions from individual free/libre/open source software project participants, regardless of their views on copyleft, and regardless of their opinions on existing licenses such as the GNU GPLv2 and its -- 1.7.10.rc1.22.gf5241 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 4/4] copyleft-next: embrace the Signed-off-by practice 2012-07-12 0:44 ` [PATCH 4/4] copyleft-next: embrace the Signed-off-by practice Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2012-07-12 15:27 ` Ted Ts'o 2012-07-12 17:30 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-07-12 19:41 ` Richard Fontana 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Ted Ts'o @ 2012-07-12 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Luis R. Rodriguez; +Cc: Richard Fontana, Bradley M. Kuhn, linux-kernel On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 05:44:49PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> > > The idea is taken from Linus Torvald's subsurface > project [0] README file. The Signed-off-by is widely > used in public projects and we stand to gain to make > its usage more prevalent. The meaning of the > Signed-off-by is borrowed from the Linux kernel's. > > [0] git://github.com/torvalds/subsurface.git > > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> I wonder why you're cc'ing the linux-kernel mailing list? I've checked the copyleft-next clause, and the anti-Tivoization clauses, which was one of the primary reasons articulated by many kernel developers --- including Linus Torvalds --- for not using GPLv3, is still in the Copyleft-next license. My understanding of Richard Fontana's past public positions was that he was supportive of that part of the GPLv3 license, and so I had assumed the Copyleft-next effort would be irrelevant as far as the Linux Kernel was concerned. Even if I am wrong about that (and I would be delighted if the answer was that one of the Copyright-next's goals was to resolve this barrier of the kernel moving off of GPLv2), it still would seem to me to be out of scope of the LKML. Regards, - Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 4/4] copyleft-next: embrace the Signed-off-by practice 2012-07-12 15:27 ` Ted Ts'o @ 2012-07-12 17:30 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-07-12 17:57 ` Ted Ts'o 2012-07-12 19:41 ` Richard Fontana 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2012-07-12 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ted Ts'o, Luis R. Rodriguez, Richard Fontana, Bradley M. Kuhn, linux-kernel On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 05:44:49PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> >> >> The idea is taken from Linus Torvald's subsurface >> project [0] README file. The Signed-off-by is widely >> used in public projects and we stand to gain to make >> its usage more prevalent. The meaning of the >> Signed-off-by is borrowed from the Linux kernel's. >> >> [0] git://github.com/torvalds/subsurface.git >> >> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> > > I wonder why you're cc'ing the linux-kernel mailing list? Simply because there is no public mailing list for it yet and given the nature of the license I wanted to ensure changes get as much public review as possible, and what better and more public place than lkml ? What can I say -- I did have hope for it to be used on Linux but more on that below. > I've checked the copyleft-next clause, and the anti-Tivoization clauses, > which was one of the primary reasons articulated by many kernel > developers --- including Linus Torvalds --- for not using GPLv3, is > still in the Copyleft-next license. > > My understanding of Richard Fontana's past public positions was that > he was supportive of that part of the GPLv3 license, and so I had > assumed the Copyleft-next effort would be irrelevant as far as the > Linux Kernel was concerned. Its unclear to me if this is the case for copyleft-next, so lets test it out and get this clarified once and for all. Even though one may be supportive of the philosophical evolutions of the ideas of copyleft I have been wondering and personally hoping Fontana would consider copyleft-next not as an effort to lead *philosophical evolutions* with regards to *freedoms on copyleft* but instead -- addressing practical issues that prevented the GPLv3 from being embraced in Linux. That is bug fixing the GPLv3 in so far as Linux is concerned. Its worth being explicitly clear so I'll send a patch to try to remove the Tivoization clauses. This can then formally be NACKed or ACKed, or issues be addressed. I should note that Fontana has indicated that he views copyleft-next not as his project but that of the community's. I'm hoping the Linux kernel community is part of this community. If one objective is not to remove Tivoization or address other kernel developer's concerns with the GPLv3 then we can rest assured we Linux kernel developers can simply disregard copyleft-next. It does make me wonder -- if the goal of copyleft-next is not to help address *our* concerns with evolutions on copyleft in the Linux kernel community if we ourselves can simply consider doing something similar where we *do* address such things. > Even if I am wrong about that (and I would be delighted if the answer > was that one of the Copyright-next's goals was to resolve this barrier > of the kernel moving off of GPLv2), it still would seem to me to be > out of scope of the LKML. Thanks, unfortunately no alternative list is yet created, so I'll respin my patches given that they seem to need a rebase now, and also try to remove Tivoization -- moving forwards at the very least we can get addressed whether or not this license can eventually be useful for Linux or not and if not I'll know not to care for it with hopes for Linux. Luis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 4/4] copyleft-next: embrace the Signed-off-by practice 2012-07-12 17:30 ` Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2012-07-12 17:57 ` Ted Ts'o 2012-07-12 18:16 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Ted Ts'o @ 2012-07-12 17:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Luis R. Rodriguez; +Cc: Richard Fontana, Bradley M. Kuhn, linux-kernel On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:30:59AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > Its unclear to me if this is the case for copyleft-next, so lets test > it out and get this clarified once and for all. Even though one may be > supportive of the philosophical evolutions of the ideas of copyleft I > have been wondering and personally hoping Fontana would consider > copyleft-next not as an effort to lead *philosophical evolutions* with > regards to *freedoms on copyleft* but instead -- addressing practical > issues that prevented the GPLv3 from being embraced in Linux. That is > bug fixing the GPLv3 in so far as Linux is concerned. Its worth being > explicitly clear so I'll send a patch to try to remove the Tivoization > clauses. This can then formally be NACKed or ACKed, or issues be > addressed. I should note that Fontana has indicated that he views > copyleft-next not as his project but that of the community's. I'm > hoping the Linux kernel community is part of this community. Well, at the risk of starting a long flame war on licensing issues on LKML, which I'm sure would not get us thanks from anyone, we do need to acknowledge that there are people "in the community" who believe very strongly in the anti-Tivoization clause. Indeed, there are others who are even more extreme, and would have preferred that the restrictions embodied in the Affero General Public License would get incorporated into the GPLv3. Very fortunately (IMHO) this idea did not get traction, but the point remains that there's a very wide diversity of opinion "in the community" about what sort of restrictions and how viral a Copyleft license "should" be. > It does make me wonder -- if the goal of copyleft-next is not to help > address *our* concerns with evolutions on copyleft in the Linux kernel > community if we ourselves can simply consider doing something similar > where we *do* address such things. Yes, but is it worth it? The patent language could get a bit stronger, and legal language would get a bit more clear; but the GPLv2 has the advantage that it's time tested and well understood. A new license would take a huge amount of work, and it's not clear the benefits outweigh the costs. And I'm not just talking about the work of revising the license, getting lawyers to sign off on it, etc., but also the work of getting all of the copyright holders (including the corporate ones) to sign off on the license change. Then there's also the license incompatibility issue problem.... Bottom line is, even if the Copyright Next license, or some fork of the Copyright Next License, had the anti-Tivoization issue addressed to the kernel community's satisfaction, is it worth the effort to move the Linux Kernel to a newer license? There are benefits, definitely; but there are also a large set of costs. Regards, - Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 4/4] copyleft-next: embrace the Signed-off-by practice 2012-07-12 17:57 ` Ted Ts'o @ 2012-07-12 18:16 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2012-07-12 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ted Ts'o, Luis R. Rodriguez, Richard Fontana, Bradley M. Kuhn, linux-kernel On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:30:59AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> Its unclear to me if this is the case for copyleft-next, so lets test >> it out and get this clarified once and for all. Even though one may be >> supportive of the philosophical evolutions of the ideas of copyleft I >> have been wondering and personally hoping Fontana would consider >> copyleft-next not as an effort to lead *philosophical evolutions* with >> regards to *freedoms on copyleft* but instead -- addressing practical >> issues that prevented the GPLv3 from being embraced in Linux. That is >> bug fixing the GPLv3 in so far as Linux is concerned. Its worth being >> explicitly clear so I'll send a patch to try to remove the Tivoization >> clauses. This can then formally be NACKed or ACKed, or issues be >> addressed. I should note that Fontana has indicated that he views >> copyleft-next not as his project but that of the community's. I'm >> hoping the Linux kernel community is part of this community. > > Well, at the risk of starting a long flame war on licensing issues on > LKML, which I'm sure would not get us thanks from anyone, we do need > to acknowledge that there are people "in the community" who believe > very strongly in the anti-Tivoization clause. I'm glad you're acknowledging this, thanks. > Indeed, there are others who are even more extreme, and would have preferred that the > restrictions embodied in the Affero General Public License would get > incorporated into the GPLv3. Holy Google, I didn't know these actual contributors existed :) > Very fortunately (IMHO) this idea did > not get traction, but the point remains that there's a very wide > diversity of opinion "in the community" about what sort of > restrictions and how viral a Copyleft license "should" be. Makes sense. >> It does make me wonder -- if the goal of copyleft-next is not to help >> address *our* concerns with evolutions on copyleft in the Linux kernel >> community if we ourselves can simply consider doing something similar >> where we *do* address such things. > > Yes, but is it worth it? The patent language could get a bit > stronger, and legal language would get a bit more clear; but the GPLv2 > has the advantage that it's time tested and well understood. A new > license would take a huge amount of work, and it's not clear the > benefits outweigh the costs. Great points. There are a few boring non controversial updates like requirements for redistribution using more reasonable modern technologies that may be worth accepting as obvious. At the very least these sort of things are with considering IMHO. Another worthy point was the removal of the death penalty. > And I'm not just talking about the work of revising the license, Which is why this is a project -- so that those who are attorneys can go off and play while we developers go off and do what we do better. > getting lawyers to sign off on it, etc., but also the work of getting > all of the copyright holders (including the corporate ones) to sign > off on the license change. Great point, if an explcit ACK is *not* required would it be worth it then? But do we require an explicit ACK if the license is compatible and all that is being done is updating the license to account for new technologies, and a maybe the death penalty ? My understanding is that we would require the explicit ACK *if* the clause on the file does not have "or later" clause for the GPLv2. We even have developers now who have died! If we are indeed required to get explicit ACKs I agree its a complex requirement and an unpractical thing to try to do then. But -- I do hope there there may be some alternative option here... > Then there's also the license > incompatibility issue problem.... Bottom line is, even if the > Copyright Next license, or some fork of the Copyright Next License, > had the anti-Tivoization issue addressed to the kernel community's > satisfaction, is it worth the effort to move the Linux Kernel to a > newer license? There are benefits, definitely; but there are also a > large set of costs. Its a great point but we also have to consider the other end of this: if we do not ever update the license, does it have any other implications ? What's the cost of that ? The only things I can think of is perhaps the death penalty, technology used to redistribute, and perhaps addressing any implicit patent grant ideas but this last one may be controversial to address, not sure. Luis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 4/4] copyleft-next: embrace the Signed-off-by practice 2012-07-12 15:27 ` Ted Ts'o 2012-07-12 17:30 ` Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2012-07-12 19:41 ` Richard Fontana 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Richard Fontana @ 2012-07-12 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ted Ts'o, Luis R. Rodriguez, Richard Fontana, Bradley M. Kuhn, linux-kernel On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote: > I wonder why you're cc'ing the linux-kernel mailing list? I agree with Ted, discussion of copyleft-next is entirely off-topic for LKML. I expect to set up a mailing list soon for copyleft-next. Regards, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-07-12 19:41 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2012-07-12 0:44 [PATCH 0/4] copyleft-next: first set of patches Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-07-12 0:44 ` [PATCH 1/4] copyleft-next: remove issue tracker references Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-07-12 0:44 ` [PATCH 2/4] copyleft-next: more project name updates Copyleft.next->copyleft-next Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-07-12 0:44 ` [PATCH 3/4] copyleft-next: rename the file COPYLEFT.next to copyleft-next Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-07-12 0:44 ` [PATCH 4/4] copyleft-next: embrace the Signed-off-by practice Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-07-12 15:27 ` Ted Ts'o 2012-07-12 17:30 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-07-12 17:57 ` Ted Ts'o 2012-07-12 18:16 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-07-12 19:41 ` Richard Fontana
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.