On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 01:02:51PM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:30:00 -0500 > Sean MacLennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Ok, here is the ad7414 only. taco-dtm is no more! > > Cool. Couple more things. > > 1) This should go through the hwmon maintainer. Send it to him. > (CC'ing this list is of course fine.) > > 2) You always need the Signed-off-by: for each patch you send > > 3) If you didn't author the code (this seems to come from Stefan), then > you need the Signed-off-by from the original author.
Nope. Signed-off-by means completely different thing. It isn't copyright, it isn't authorship. It's an information (for the history) whom to bother if code appeared to be either: a) broken; b) stolen from the closed source product; c) patented (where applicable). There are Copyright (c) and Author: strings in the files for the credits. If original patch had these strings, then yes, you must keep them. But no one needs author's Signed-off-by, it having zero information you're hinting about. More than that, there were precedents when author insisted on removing his Signed-off-by from the modified patch (when S-o-b used as a permit into someone's tree). Btw, kernel.org is distributing linux tarballs without changelogs, thus without Signed-off-by lines. Nobody complains. Yes, it's common sense and politeness to keep Signed-off-by lines intact (and the order of these lines), but it's not strict requirement. "Based on the patch from ..." is the equivalent of this politeness. > You're getting there :) These are all "newbie" type mistakes so keep > plugging away. > > josh Good luck, -- Anton Vorontsov email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] backup email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev