linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2] MEDIA: Driver for ON Semi AR0521 camera sensor

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: <YNSZ4fbboJokxZSx@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Jun 2021 16:42:41 +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 04:34:06PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 03:22:48PM +0200, Krzysztof Hałasa wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> > 
> > Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> writes:
> > 
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > 
> > > Putting the above line on a file _IS_ a legal declaration that the file
> > > is released under GPL-2.0.  It's pretty simple :)
> 
> Greg, on a side note, the discussion originated from
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/m3r1gt5hzm.fsf@t19.piap.pl/. I'll
> quote Krzysztof so the discussion doesn't get split across multiple
> places:
> 
> > > To spend time reviewing this code, I want to know it will be mergeable,
> > > and that requires a SoB line. That's a blocker I'm afraid.
> > 
> > So how do you propose to solve the situation, in which my driver is
> > rejected, but another persor takes it, makes changes (btw breaking it),
> > and presents it as their own, and it's accepted? This is a paid work and
> > I'm required to put in my employer's copyright over the code.
> > I could have made this error once - but no more.
> > 
> > The code will be mergeable, as I already wrote. Why would I bother
> > otherwise? But I cannot let that history to repeat itself.
> 
> Your opinion on this would be valuable too.

I would not waste my time on code that does not have a signed-off-by on
it, otherwise the developer is obviously saying they do not want to
merge this as-is.  And I think we all have plenty of code from
developers that actually want to have their patches merged.

thanks,

greg k-h