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: <m3h7hm4h14.fsf@t19.piap.pl>
Date:   Fri, 25 Jun 2021 08:03:51 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Hałasa <khalasa@...p.pl>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        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

Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> writes:

> 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.

I would want it be be merged as-is, and would happily supply a SOB, but
nobody would merge it at this point. This isn't a problem, though.

> And I think we all have plenty of code from
> developers that actually want to have their patches merged.

Oh well. I want to have *MY* patch merged. That's exactly why I did what
I did. I did state that I will sign if off when I get positive response,
when the patch is ready to be merged. Isn't it clear?

I almost always sign off my patches. However, this is a specific
situation. Few years ago I published a patch for the same subsystem.
Obviously signed it off etc. It was exactly my SOB that caused it to be
*NOT* merged. Not because it was really bad or something, but because
another developer modified it and the modified patch was given priority.

I didn't object to the modified driver, in fact. I only wanted it to go
through the same process as all other patches, on top of my original
code, to see if it had merit. Guess what.

After all I was told that I had abandoned the code, but it was summer,
I had vacations. I'm starting vacations in a couple of days as well,
will 3 weeks of my absence mean abandonment again?
drivers/media is a fast moving target, catching up will take some time
as well. Abandonment?

Should anyone be surprised that I don't want this story to repeat
itself?

Or, maybe, it's just me. Maybe such actions are good and welcome among
Linux developers? Please answer.

>> Why not? I can put such a text on a book (say, an e-book) as well.
>
> Where would that text be and what would it mean?

Does it matter?
It would be on something that is not a part of the kernel. That's the
point - the SPDX tags may have a lot of meaning in the kernel, and none
outside of it. I can write SPDX-* on a wall of my home and it doesn't
mean it's now a public house.

It was just said that drivers written specifically for Linux (but not
derived from GPLed code) are automatically under GPL. They don't, for
the same reason - the GPL can't define it's scope (nor it claims to);
the author/owner has to do it. At least, it works like that in my
country.

>> > S-o-b is a DIFFERENT thing entirely.   Please go read the DCO for what
>> > you are agreeing to there, it is a declaration for what you are doing.
>> 
>> Well, that's my position.
>
> That's not what a signed-off-by means, please do not try to make it
> something it is not.

What do you mean?

Chris.
-- 
Krzysztof Hałasa

Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz
Przemysłowy Instytut Automatyki i Pomiarów PIAP
Al. Jerozolimskie 202, 02-486 Warszawa