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_PATCH, 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 0F393C49EA5 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 12:11:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC10F613DA for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 12:11:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230093AbhFXMN0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2021 08:13:26 -0400 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com ([213.167.242.64]:40696 "EHLO perceval.ideasonboard.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229448AbhFXMNY (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2021 08:13:24 -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 59BB9532; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 14:11:04 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1624536664; bh=ga5tn9+ve4Rfsq6XPWUZUxag7McM+mFPUJEaueRLLfA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=a/66g1Kay6NxbZC1Pmmtm7sURU3SXaYXhxTgjCkmRSZrQk769iNKu4Zrz0Wne3UWV w6xEuLV/RAJAWAgy6cQHP60VGRwIAXF6qMtcAxgFsuj3sLOqTttirKCbDwlaXU2vO7 5wbmpbQDyvvWn4wa6nA9/c1M2i9/AL788AUBdFuw= Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 15:10:34 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Ha=C5=82asa?= Cc: Kieran Bingham , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH 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 Hi Krzysztof, CC'ing Greg to get his expert opinion on the topic. On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 06:57:55AM +0200, Krzysztof Hałasa wrote: > Hi Kieran, and others, > > Kieran Bingham writes: > > >>> The work is not published under GPL. > > > > This seems like an odd thing to say when your patch explicitly contains: > > > >> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ar0521.c > >> @@ -0,0 +1,1060 @@ > >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > Such tags have meaning only in the kernel context, when signed-off etc. > Alone, they aren't legal statements, especially when I explicitly state > that it's not signed-off-by me yet. Nevertheless... > > Obviously, this code was always meant to be GPLed and it seems really > crazy to me that we even have to have such conversations - about > a non issue, at least from my POV. > > The fact is that 6 years ago I wrote driver for a SDTV frame grabber - > and another developer "took" the development from me, and published as > his own. This wasn't probably illegal - after all my driver was covered > by the GPL from the start. But was it really how we all want things to > work in Linux? With such experience, is anybody surprised I want to > avoid this history repeating itself? > > For other patches I don't care about such formalities, but this driver > is a work paid by an external entity and it would be unfortunate to > end up the same way as the tw686x driver. > > > I stated multiple times I will sign this code off when it's accepted. > Is it really a problem? Really? > > If so... perhaps there is some other way? > > I'd hate to think that the next time I'm to keep my code unpublished. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart