On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 03:14:20PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Which is why the lawyers need to go over this document and I haven't
> seen anything posted from them. In the same vein Mauro is concerned
> that the way this is code is written it is a binding contract in
> Brazil.
My
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 03:14:20PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Which is why the lawyers need to go over this document and I haven't
> seen anything posted from them. In the same vein Mauro is concerned
> that the way this is code is written it is a binding contract in
> Brazil.
My
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> I don't see it specifically stating that 'If someone is offensive at a
> kernel summit we are going to refuse to listen'
Kernel summit or Maintainer summit is covered by the CoC of the conference
it is attached to.
Thanks,
tglx
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> I don't see it specifically stating that 'If someone is offensive at a
> kernel summit we are going to refuse to listen'
Kernel summit or Maintainer summit is covered by the CoC of the conference
it is attached to.
Thanks,
tglx
The 'who said' is generally safe (except from the it's in court case -
which is fine when that happens the legal process deals with it). The
other details are not so while someone accused of something might not
know who said it they can ask for what personal data (which would include
that e
The 'who said' is generally safe (except from the it's in court case -
which is fine when that happens the legal process deals with it). The
other details are not so while someone accused of something might not
know who said it they can ask for what personal data (which would include
that e
James, and our other friends,
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:59 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity
More than one ambiguity. This whole file needs to go.
>* Trolling,
Who decides what is trolling, and what is a technique for raising
awareness or sparking
James, and our other friends,
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:59 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity
More than one ambiguity. This whole file needs to go.
>* Trolling,
Who decides what is trolling, and what is a technique for raising
awareness or sparking
On Sat, 2018-10-20 at 19:28 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > +to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated
> > to
> > +maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an
> > incident.
> > +Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted
> > +separately.
>
>
On Sat, 2018-10-20 at 19:28 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > +to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated
> > to
> > +maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an
> > incident.
> > +Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted
> > +separately.
>
>
On Sat, 2018-10-20 at 19:24 +, tim.b...@sony.com wrote:
> The scope of the code of conduct basically means that it covers
> online interactions (communication via mailing list, git commits
> and Bugzilla). Not to be flippant, but those are hardly mediums
> that are susceptible to executing
On Sat, 2018-10-20 at 19:24 +, tim.b...@sony.com wrote:
> The scope of the code of conduct basically means that it covers
> online interactions (communication via mailing list, git commits
> and Bugzilla). Not to be flippant, but those are hardly mediums
> that are susceptible to executing
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Cox
>
> > +to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated to
> > +maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident.
> > +Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted
> > +separately.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Cox
>
> > +to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated to
> > +maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident.
> > +Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted
> > +separately.
>
>
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 2:47 PM Trond Myklebust wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2018-10-20 at 19:28 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > +to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated
> > > to
> > > +maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an
> > > incident.
> > > +Further details
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 2:47 PM Trond Myklebust wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2018-10-20 at 19:28 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > +to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated
> > > to
> > > +maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an
> > > incident.
> > > +Further details
On Sat, 2018-10-20 at 19:28 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > +to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated
> > to
> > +maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an
> > incident.
> > +Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted
> > +separately.
>
>
On Sat, 2018-10-20 at 19:28 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > +to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated
> > to
> > +maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an
> > incident.
> > +Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted
> > +separately.
>
>
> +to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated to
> +maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident.
> +Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted
> +separately.
Unfortunately by ignoring the other suggestions on this you've left
> +to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated to
> +maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident.
> +Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted
> +separately.
Unfortunately by ignoring the other suggestions on this you've left
The contact point for the kernel's Code of Conduct should now be the
Code of Conduct Committee, not the full TAB. Change the email address
in the file to properly reflect this.
Acked-by: Chris Mason
Acked-by: Olof Johansson
Acked-by: Theodore Ts'o
Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner
Signed-off
The contact point for the kernel's Code of Conduct should now be the
Code of Conduct Committee, not the full TAB. Change the email address
in the file to properly reflect this.
Acked-by: Chris Mason
Acked-by: Olof Johansson
Acked-by: Theodore Ts'o
Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner
Signed-off
Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>>> On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> Trying to understand how you are understanding my comment
>>>>>>> vs what
>>>>>>> I i
Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>>> On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> Trying to understand how you are understanding my comment
>>>>>>> vs what
>>>>>>> I i
> On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > > > > Trying to understand how you are understanding my comment
> > > > > > vs what
> > > > > > I intended to communicate, it seems to me that you are
> > > > > >
> On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > > > > Trying to understand how you are understanding my comment
> > > > > > vs what
> > > > > > I intended to communicate, it seems to me that you are
> > > > > >
ou are understanding my comment vs what
> >>>> I intended to communicate, it seems to me that you are focused on
> >>>> the "where allowed" and I am focused on the "which email
> >>>> addresses".
> >>>>
> >>
ou are understanding my comment vs what
> >>>> I intended to communicate, it seems to me that you are focused on
> >>>> the "where allowed" and I am focused on the "which email
> >>>> addresses".
> >>>>
> >>
it seems to me that you are focused on
>>>> the "where allowed" and I am focused on the "which email
>>>> addresses".
>>>>
>>>> More clear? Or am I still not communicating well enough?
>>>
>>> I think the crux of
it seems to me that you are focused on
>>>> the "where allowed" and I am focused on the "which email
>>>> addresses".
>>>>
>>>> More clear? Or am I still not communicating well enough?
>>>
>>> I think the crux of
uot;where allowed" and I am focused on the "which email
> > > addresses".
> > >
> > > More clear? Or am I still not communicating well enough?
> >
> > I think the crux of the disagreement is that you think the carve
> > out equates to a per
uot;where allowed" and I am focused on the "which email
> > > addresses".
> > >
> > > More clear? Or am I still not communicating well enough?
> >
> > I think the crux of the disagreement is that you think the carve
> > out equates to a per
>>
>>>> My understanding of the concern behind this change is that we
>>>> should be able to use an email address for the current
>>>> development practices, such as Reported-by, Suggested-by, etc
>>>> tags when the email address was pr
>>
>>>> My understanding of the concern behind this change is that we
>>>> should be able to use an email address for the current
>>>> development practices, such as Reported-by, Suggested-by, etc
>>>> tags when the email address was pr
hat the professionals that deal with information privacy
> could provide better wording for the above list. I am but an
> amateur in that field.
>
> Anything else collected by the project would not be considered public.
> For example, an email address provided in an email sent to me
hat the professionals that deal with information privacy
> could provide better wording for the above list. I am but an
> amateur in that field.
>
> Anything else collected by the project would not be considered public.
> For example, an email address provided in an email sent to me
this change is that we
> > > should be able to use an email address for the current
> > > development practices, such as Reported-by, Suggested-by, etc
> > > tags when the email address was provided in what is a public
> > > space for the project. The pu
this change is that we
> > > should be able to use an email address for the current
> > > development practices, such as Reported-by, Suggested-by, etc
> > > tags when the email address was provided in what is a public
> > > space for the project. The pu
s
>>>> publishing
>>>> private information such as email addresses unacceptable
>>>> behaviour. Since
>>>> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of
>>>> the patch
>>>> process, add an exception clause for em
s
>>>> publishing
>>>> private information such as email addresses unacceptable
>>>> behaviour. Since
>>>> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of
>>>> the patch
>>>> process, add an exception clause for em
On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
>>> publishing
>>> private information
On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
>>> publishing
>>> private information
On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
> > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
> > publishing
> > private information such as email addresses unacceptable
> > behaviour. Since
&g
On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
> > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
> > publishing
> > private information such as email addresses unacceptable
> > behaviour. Since
&g
On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch
>
On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch
>
The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch
process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily
The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch
process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 1:08 PM, James Bottomley
wrote:
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 1:08 PM, James Bottomley
wrote:
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of
Em Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:08:35 -0700
James Bottomley escreveu:
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of
Em Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:08:35 -0700
James Bottomley escreveu:
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of
James Bottomley writes:
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch
> process, add an exce
James Bottomley writes:
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch
> process, add an exce
On 10/06/18 14:36, James Bottomley wrote:
> From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: James Bottomley
> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email
> addresses
>
On 10/06/18 14:36, James Bottomley wrote:
> From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: James Bottomley
> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email
> addresses
>
The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch
process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily
The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch
process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily
> > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley
> > ---
> > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785
> > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley
> > ---
> > Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> > b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst
> > index ab7c24b5478c..aa40e34e7785
tober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett:
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it
>>>>>> considers publishing private information such
tober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett:
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it
>>>>>> considers publishing private information such
ambiguity in the it considers publishing
>>>> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
>>>> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the
>>>> patch
>>>> process, add an exception clause
ambiguity in the it considers publishing
>>>> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
>>>> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the
>>>> patch
>>>> process, add an exception clause
at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>>>>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
>>>>> publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable
>>>>> behaviour. Since the Linux kernel collects and publ
at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>>>>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
>>>>> publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable
>>>>> behaviour. Since the Linux kernel collects and publ
> > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it
> > > > > considers publishing private information such as email
> > > > > addresses un
> > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it
> > > > > considers publishing private information such as email
> > > > > addresses un
>>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
> >>> publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable
> >>> behaviour. Since the Linux kernel collects and publishes email
> >>> addresses as part of the patch pro
>>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
> >>> publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable
> >>> behaviour. Since the Linux kernel collects and publishes email
> >>> addresses as part of the patch pro
t; publishing
> > > private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
> > > the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the
> > > patch
> > > process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily
t; publishing
> > > private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
> > > the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the
> > > patch
> > > process, add an exception clause for email addresses ordinarily
Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett:
> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
> > private information such as email addresses unacceptable be
Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2018, 08:20:44 schrieb Josh Triplett:
> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
> > private information such as email addresses unacceptable be
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 12:57:51PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 04:23:57PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Fully agreed on that. The same argument that we use for GPL 2 only
> > applies here: we should stick with an specific version of this it, in
> > a way that
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 12:57:51PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 04:23:57PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Fully agreed on that. The same argument that we use for GPL 2 only
> > applies here: we should stick with an specific version of this it, in
> > a way that
> > > > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
> > > > publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable
> > > > behaviour. Since the Linux kernel collects and publishes email
> > > > addresses as part o
> > > > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
> > > > publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable
> > > > behaviour. Since the Linux kernel collects and publishes email
> > > > addresses as part o
0:00
> > > 2001
> > > From: James Bottomley
> > > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700
> > > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about
> > > collecting email
> > > addresses
> > >
> > > The current code of
0:00
> > > 2001
> > > From: James Bottomley
> > > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700
> > > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about
> > > collecting email
> > > addresses
> > >
> > > The current code of
Em Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:37:59 +1000
Dave Airlie escreveu:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 08:56, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 08:25:35AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >
> > > This isn't a legally binding license or anything, but departing from
> > > the upstream wording makes it tricker
Em Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:37:59 +1000
Dave Airlie escreveu:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 08:56, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 08:25:35AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >
> > > This isn't a legally binding license or anything, but departing from
> > > the upstream wording makes it tricker
Em Sat, 06 Oct 2018 14:36:39 -0700
James Bottomley escreveu:
> From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: James Bottomley
> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email
Em Sat, 06 Oct 2018 14:36:39 -0700
James Bottomley escreveu:
> From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: James Bottomley
> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email
gt; > publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable
> > > behaviour. Since the Linux kernel collects and publishes email
> > > addresses as part of the patch process, add an exception clause for
> > > email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to
gt; > publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable
> > > behaviour. Since the Linux kernel collects and publishes email
> > > addresses as part of the patch process, add an exception clause for
> > > email addresses ordinarily collected by the project to
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 08:25:35AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> This isn't a legally binding license or anything, but departing from
> the upstream wording makes it tricker to merge new upstream versions
> if they are considered appropriate.
The whole document is under 500 words, if we can manage
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 08:25:35AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> This isn't a legally binding license or anything, but departing from
> the upstream wording makes it tricker to merge new upstream versions
> if they are considered appropriate.
The whole document is under 500 words, if we can manage
On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 08:20 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
> > publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable
> > behavi
On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 08:20 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
> > publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable
> > behavi
On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of
On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 02:36:39PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of
-0700
> > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about
> > collecting email addresses
> >
> > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
> > publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable
> > behaviour. S
-0700
> > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about
> > collecting email addresses
> >
> > The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
> > publishing private information such as email addresses unacceptable
> > behaviour. S
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:37:59AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 08:56, Al Viro wrote:
> > We can surround it with "explanations" until we get something that more or
> > less fits, but then we'd need to reanalyse them every time an upstream
> > change gets merged. And the
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:37:59AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 08:56, Al Viro wrote:
> > We can surround it with "explanations" until we get something that more or
> > less fits, but then we'd need to reanalyse them every time an upstream
> > change gets merged. And the
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 08:56, Al Viro wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 08:25:35AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> > This isn't a legally binding license or anything, but departing from
> > the upstream wording makes it tricker to merge new upstream versions
> > if they are considered appropriate.
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 08:56, Al Viro wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 08:25:35AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> > This isn't a legally binding license or anything, but departing from
> > the upstream wording makes it tricker to merge new upstream versions
> > if they are considered appropriate.
On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 11:56:13PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> We can surround it with "explanations"
Sorry, "clarifications". Or whatever euphemism you prefer for
exegesis, really...
On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 11:56:13PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> We can surround it with "explanations"
Sorry, "clarifications". Or whatever euphemism you prefer for
exegesis, really...
401 - 500 of 2472 matches
Mail list logo
