linux-kernel - Streamlining Developer's Certificate of Origin, Signed-off-by tag

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAB=NE6WTFv80w6bkQNqaAG69CADmdiqa-tLKD9s=h_p+1D92tQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:59:40 -0800
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Streamlining Developer's Certificate of Origin, Signed-off-by tag

So it turns out everyone and their mother's attorneys love the
Signed-off-by tag and its definition as explained on the Linux kernel
under the Developer's Certificate of Origin. Its to the extent other
projects have picked it up and started documenting their own
documentation for submitting patches to embrace the same definition,
some without knowing what they were doing, some knowingly and
rightfully doing so. I think it'd be good to see more embracement of
the tag but to help do this it occurs to me perhaps it'd be good to
treat  the 'Developer's Certificate of Origin' as a standalone
document that we can reference independently, and then have the kernel
itself refer to it. That is, provide a unified easy way to refer to
the practice for requiring the SOB tag and what it means.

Thoughts?

  Luis
--
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/