[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YNR9CS/PfG7s1e71@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 14:39:37 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: Krzysztof Hałasa <khalasa@...p.pl>,
Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] MEDIA: Driver for ON Semi AR0521 camera sensor
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 03:10:34PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> 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 <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com> 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.
Huh? It is a statement of the license of the file itself, it is
independent of "Signed-off-by:" which is a legal agreement of a totally
different thing and is independent of license type entirely.
> > Alone, they aren't legal statements, especially when I explicitly state
> > that it's not signed-off-by me yet. Nevertheless...
Putting the above line on a file _IS_ a legal declaration that the file
is released under GPL-2.0. It's pretty simple :)
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists