From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264697AbUEXVRL (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 17:17:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264700AbUEXVRL (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 17:17:11 -0400 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([69.30.125.51]:27083 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264697AbUEXVRF (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 17:17:05 -0400 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 14:16:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@bigblue.dev.mdolabs.com To: Linus Torvalds cc: Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1YUY7-6fF-11@gated-at.bofh.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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