From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B591BC49EA7 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 13:34:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D5D461002 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 13:34:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231738AbhFXNhA (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2021 09:37:00 -0400 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com ([213.167.242.64]:42954 "EHLO perceval.ideasonboard.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231707AbhFXNg5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2021 09:36:57 -0400 Received: from pendragon.ideasonboard.com (62-78-145-57.bb.dnainternet.fi [62.78.145.57]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F0349501; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 15:34:36 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1624541677; bh=6qFe25lAFpYqRWkfpn2PWiku/loxGKiPTH42srro7Zk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Qg/EC/BvcI8fB4WDjBJRbqZFxWVfvjTj0Mo2NU06xm2Vb2mbBucYf5jATMamb3W3+ 61jZd/SGn4BTObsUfDkGKr3A7MigG21yklzNfDnC1mE3ywvFojI8WiG9FuNrtisYW0 uLDHghKdq9PBT4CtLXwo/xt6Y43nrdmX5amcUE6o= Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 16:34:06 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Ha=C5=82asa?= Cc: Greg KH , Kieran Bingham , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC v2] MEDIA: Driver for ON Semi AR0521 camera sensor Message-ID: References: <42958029-5625-5f4d-a075-2f59a74e0fb5@ideasonboard.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 03:22:48PM +0200, Krzysztof Hałasa wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Greg KH writes: > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > Putting the above line on a file _IS_ a legal declaration that the file > > is released under GPL-2.0. It's pretty simple :) Greg, on a side note, the discussion originated from https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/m3r1gt5hzm.fsf@t19.piap.pl/. I'll quote Krzysztof so the discussion doesn't get split across multiple places: > > To spend time reviewing this code, I want to know it will be mergeable, > > and that requires a SoB line. That's a blocker I'm afraid. > > So how do you propose to solve the situation, in which my driver is > rejected, but another persor takes it, makes changes (btw breaking it), > and presents it as their own, and it's accepted? This is a paid work and > I'm required to put in my employer's copyright over the code. > I could have made this error once - but no more. > > The code will be mergeable, as I already wrote. Why would I bother > otherwise? But I cannot let that history to repeat itself. Your opinion on this would be valuable too. > Do you think putting this line anywhere, in any file, does it? > That would be crazy. > > How about a book, e.g. describing a patch submission process (but not > a copy of kernel's Documentation). The same? > > Also - in all countries? Most of them? > > Come on. > > Then why would we need the Signed-off-by? > From my perspective, the SPDX-License-Identifier is only meaningful when > the file is actually a part of the kernel, or if, at least, it's been > presented for merge, with Signed-off-by etc. Quoting Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst: Sign your work - the Developer's Certificate of Origin ------------------------------------------------------ To improve tracking of who did what, especially with patches that can percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several layers of maintainers, we've introduced a "sign-off" procedure on patches that are being emailed around. The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to pass it on as an open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you can certify the below: Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: (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 (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 (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified it. (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution are public and that a record of the contribution (including all personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with this project or the open source license(s) involved. then you just add a line saying:: Signed-off-by: Random J Developer The SoB line doesn't convey any license information, that's specified separately and explicitly in each file (usually in the form of an SPDX tag, which is just a machine-parsable, short-hand version of a full license header in text form). -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart