On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 08:40:21AM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Bob Copeland wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:35:29 +0000 (GMT), Hugh Dickins wrote > > > > I'll go ahead and push this upstream then today or tomorrow; > > Great, thanks - should include a Cc: sta...@kernel.org I think. > > > let me know if you run into any problems with more testing. > > Sure, will do. > > > > > Changes-licensed-under: 3-Clause-BSD > > > > > > Hmm, I haven't noticed anyone doing that before: hope you're not > > > starting a trend! I think you'll find (Documentation/SubmittingPatches) > > > that your Signed-off-by agrees to the Developer's Certificate of Origin > > > 1.1, which would put your patch under the same open source licence(s) as > > > drivers/net/wireless/ath5k/base.c already contains - that's the usual > > > case. > > > > I agree with all of the above, but the SFLC suggests we do it anyway.
Lets not open a can a worms here, but I just want to clarify a few things. To be fair, as stated before, SFLC suggested we just ensure people are aware of the licenses involved and in order to keep files under permissive licenses we just need a way to ensure the contributors are actually submitting their changes under the file's specified license. We did review Documentation/SubmittingPatches but this was deemed not sufficient as from what I recall you cannot gaurantee all contributors would have read that and understood clearly what is implied under this discussion. The Changes-licensed-under tag was just my own suggestion to the problem to help the BSD family and that did suffice the legal criteria so we went with it. > > http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Wireless_Project_Suggests_Changes-licensed-under_Tag > > Interesting, thanks a lot for the pointer. > I agree very much with Steve and Krzysztof. > > I'd be inclined to think that adding such a line in some patches > would only tend towards making those which omit such a line more > questionable for use under the BSD licence i.e. would weaken the > BSD position rather than strengthening it as intended - though > the Signed-off-by should override even that tendency. You just need to ensure your contributors have read and understood Documentation/SubmittingPatches. > But it's certainly not an issue for my attention! For ath9k we've taken a bit different approach, and I should note SFLC was not involved with this, we tend to ensure wireless contributors and developers have read the "Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1" and any new contributors get an e-mail from us asking them to read it [1]. This also proves a bit difficult as some seasoned developers take offense to such e-mails while some new developers speculate to our intentions and may develop crazy conspiracy theories. http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/11/25/289 Luis _______________________________________________ ath5k-devel mailing list ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org https://lists.ath5k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath5k-devel
