linux-kernel - Re: MODULE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <462C7D74.60003@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:33:40 +0200
From:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: MODULE_MAINTAINER

On 04/04/2007 06:38 PM, Rene Herman wrote:

Rusty?

> On 04/04/2007 06:00 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> 
>>> Given that people seem to agree that authorship information has no 
>>> place in the binary, that might actually be best.
>>
>> Authorship information is very useful in the binary, especially when you
>> have to get lawyers involved in explaining things to people.
> 
> Okay.
> 
>>> So, MODULE_AUTHOR be gone?
>>
>> Not if I have anything to do with it. Putting maintainer in is not a
>> bad idea but that assumes it gets maintained, the beauty of _AUTHOR
>> is that it's generally right and stays that way or approximately so.
> 
> Case in point; someone is working with me in private on a new "mitsumi" 
> legacy CD-ROM driver. He's authoring the actual driver and upto now I've 
> just been doing some peripheral module infrastructure work. Given that I 
> have the hardware to test the thing, I'll be the maintainer though.
> 
> Adding myself as a MODULE_AUTHOR would be largely incorrect and adding 
> myself as the _only_ MODULE_AUTHOR would be so factually incorrect I 
> wouldn't, even if only from a credits point of view. Yet I do want to 
> make sure people contact me, and not the MODULE_AUTHOR (which will 
> happen no matter the MAINTAINERS file).
> 
> Other cases-in-point; I've lately been rummaging through sound/isa a 
> bit. Nothing much copyrightable again but especially in those situations 
> where (some of the) original authors are no longer active, I do again 
> want people to contact me about them if needed. And all the "which one 
> of the three people listed here is maintaining this" is yet another.
> 
> MODULE_AUTHOR may be approximately right but especially with old drivers 
> it also has little relation with who's maintaining the thing.
> 
> If MODULE_AUTHOR stays, can I just have MODULE_MAINTAINER please? It 
> doesn't need to be added to drivers directly, it can just grow (and 
> being inside the code, I suppose it'll likely stay up to date better 
> than the MAINTAINERS file).

Rene.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/