linux-kernel - Re: Gerrit (was Re: HTC Dream aka. t-mobile g1 support)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20090612224840.GG17688@elf.ucw.cz>
Date:	Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:48:40 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Shawn Pearce <sop@...gle.com>
Cc:	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	Stefan Schmidt <stefan@...enfreihafen.org>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: Re: Gerrit (was Re: HTC Dream aka. t-mobile g1 support)

Hi!

>    On Fri 2009-06-12 14:50:21, Brian Swetland wrote:
>    > Gerrit is a git patch review system that we (Google/Android) use for
>    > android development (kernel and otherwise).  Some other folks like
>    > Qualcomm, and TI (see [2]http://review.omapzoom.org/) have adopted it
> 
>      Unfortunately, it seems quite unsuitable for kernel.
>      Do I understand it right that to submit kernel patches I'd have to
>      agree to "contributors agreement", and give up my copyright? No,
>      sorry, I don't think I want to do that.
> 
>    No.  The contributor agreement used by [3]review.source.android.com is
>    a stronger version of the Developers Certificate of Origin normally use
>    d by kernel contributors.

So, agreeing to that is neccessary for using Gerrit? Too bad. As I
said, it is unsuitable for kernel patches.

>    For the actual agreement text see[1], but the basic principle is the
>    same.  No assignment of copyright, only assignment of license for
>    redistribution, which is what the GPL asks anyway.  It also

As I read it, it is very different from GPL.

It grants google license to do anything with that code, such as
packaging it into closed source product.

# 2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
# this Grant, You hereby grant to the Project Leads and to recipients of
# software distributed by the Project Leads a perpetual, worldwide,
# non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license
# to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly
# perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such
# derivative works.

Kernel already has GPL license and Developers Certificate of Origin,
so please just use that for the kernel. (Kernel also has perfectly
working patch review system called mailing lists and git trees; please
use that, too).

>    patent provision, similar to what the Apache License contains, to
>    protect the project leads from submarine patent infringement by code
>    contributed by a patent holder.
>    [1] [4]https://review.source.android.com/static/cla_individual.html

									Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/