On 8 February 2018 at 01:35, Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 02/08/18 00:48, Kinney, Michael D wrote: >> Laszlo, >> >> The BmpSupportLib content was from contributions from >> a capsule related branch. However, the BmpSupportLib >> can be used for UX capsules as well as other places that >> conversions between BMP and GOP BLT buffers are needed, >> so it is a more generic feature. The SafeIntLib was also >> based on content from the same capsule related branch but >> also has uses other than capsules. >> >> Yes. I need to add Signed-off-by for Sean.
I will note once again that our signed off by deviates from other usage in the industry. Usually, a sign off is not an assertion of authorship. It means that the submitter is able to submit the code under the license that covers it. In our case, it means authorship, which is why we as reviewers/maintainers add 'reviewed-by' not 'signed-off-by' like we do in the linux kernel. So what if I want to merge code that is available under a suitable license, but the author is not available to give his sign off, or there are many (hundreds) of authors etc etc? The whole point of open source licensing is that we don't *need* the explicit sign off of the authors, because the license tells us what we can and cannot do with the code. I guess this is also related to the DCO vs contributed-under tags, but in general, I think adding the sign off of people who are not involved in the actual upstreaming of the code is wrong, and it is perfectly fine for the author not to be in a s-o-b line. -- Ard. _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
