Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission

[Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>]

On Mon, 24 May 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, 24 May 2004, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > 
> > IANAL, but I don't think they have to ask. As with GPL, you not required 
> > to sign anything to be able to use the software. By using the software you 
> > agree on the license. By submitting a patch to a maintainer, you agree 
> > with the Developer's Certificate of Origin.
> 
> No, the thing is, we want your name to show up, and we do want you to 
> explicitly state that not only do you know about the license, you also 
> have the right to release your code under the license.
> 
> Yes, that was all implied before. This is nothing new. The only new thing 
> is to _document_ it, and make it _explicit_.
> 
> And that means that submitters should read the DCO, and add the extra 
> line. That's kind of the whole point of it - making a very ingrained and 
> implicit assumption be explicitly documented.
> 
> In other words: this is not about changing the way we work. It's about 
> documenting the things we take for granted. So that outsiders can be shown 
> how it works.

That was what I was implying. Example:

me: Andrew this is the quit-smoking-patch-0.1.diff
Andrew: Where's your signature? Go read Documentation/xxx and repost the signed version
me: Oke doke. Reading ...
me: There you go, here's quit-smoking-patch-0.2.diff with the required signature



- Davide