Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] samples: replace outdated permission statement with SPDX identifiers | From | Martin Kepplinger <> | Date | Sat, 18 Nov 2017 09:33:01 +0100 |
| |
On 2017-11-18 01:13, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 00:43:46 +0100 > Martin Kepplinger <martink@posteo.de> wrote: > >> But Greg, people are listening to you. Please don't give advice in >> directions that are not clearly correct for Linux. You know you could >> have simply ack'd the initial mistake-fix in that case. It wouldn't have >> hurt anybody. > > Sigh, it wasn't my intent to get Greg in trouble. > > Martin... please don't blame Greg here. What's going on (IMO) is that > you've stumbled into something that we have just now begun to figure > out. We very much *want* to rip out all that boilerplate, but we don't > yet have a consensus on the proper way to do it. We haven't really even > had the discussion yet. You've just had the poor luck to wander in at > the wrong time and become part of that discussion. > > I'll confess that, when I saw your first patch, it crossed my mind to > answer much like Greg did. But Greg always gets there first :) >
Alright, noone is in trouble already I hope. Maybe I was a little harsh; sorry Greg. I know less about law than about programming which might have made me a little nervous here; In the end I want things to work for Linux.
> The files that you are touching mostly have listed copyright holders in > them. Should you feel like putting a bit more energy into this, one > thing to do could be to copy them on a new posting of the patch and ask > for acks. Assuming you get them, we should be able to clean up a bit of > cruft in a way that's clearly supported by the copyright holders. >
Makes sense. Thanks for clearing this up a bit! So as fixing your "own" files is easier, I'll do that first :)
martin
| |