From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: linux-next: Signed-off-by missing for commit in the powerpc tree Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:47:25 +1100 Message-ID: <20190225094659.741bf42f@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20190224010511.74f25272@canb.auug.org.au> <8736odl846.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="Sig_/==0L43=u6mND1Rkb1uxqnn9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <8736odl846.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Ellerman Cc: PowerPC , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org --Sig_/==0L43=u6mND1Rkb1uxqnn9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Michael, On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 22:48:57 +1100 Michael Ellerman wr= ote: > > But do they need SOBs? I think so, since they modify the code .. > The DCO says: >=20 > By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: >=20 > (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I > have the right to submit it under the open source license > indicated in the file; or >=20 > (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 >=20 > (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other > person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified > it. >=20 > (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution > are public and that a record of the contribution (including a= ll > personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off)= is > maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent w= ith > this project or the open source license(s) involved. >=20 >=20 > Only d) really applies to a revert, and as the maintainer I feel like d) > is kind of implied. I read this as (a || b || c) && d. And if there is no SOB, then none of the above is certified. > Anyway I'll try and remember to do it in future if that's The Rule ;) Its just as effective as the rest of our rules ... i.e. a strong suggestion :-) Thanks --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell --Sig_/==0L43=u6mND1Rkb1uxqnn9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEENIC96giZ81tWdLgKAVBC80lX0GwFAlxzHv0ACgkQAVBC80lX 0Gz4KAf/YaVU9s53s+KgK+SNwYdSYd42mRJmfXVyrrUb0M6tubHkFyFsMmrI4apo lSaMmDwtrlOMf0Q8zm34TLUpyGtN0qGlhIlWgQJJSycLHZdh8BTkmzpyM5F9Byoa Yjiqx5eHBl1Bzd4K6BlJp0LdQG1FIuJcYKPD9iJ/mmqYhOLpEjs5KGiVmwQeML7g nzdG+lnBTlxdV/ja2VYqxtNK7Elb6PP6RpBSgqvWbPM1bIn95Ajk3HBJ93W9qvVK ykYz515cx8NvKj+OeKdnRX1uUDrjdU+vO06xFNL15/2ta5isXrdfbNiejglSChYh ZjfEz58DI2UdEoFIs8pqO7nCb9m3GA== =Vw1t -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/==0L43=u6mND1Rkb1uxqnn9--