Hi,
For thinkpad users, there is the tp_smapi module (along with thinkpad_ec and
an improved hdaps driver):
http://sourceforge.net/projects/tpctl
I wanted to ask if there is some status on possible kernel inclusion. On
http://www.linuxdriverproject.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/OutOfTreeDrivers
I read
"will not be accepted upstream due to authorship issues (written by an
anonymous developer)"
Now I can see copyright notices in all source files, though they may be
incomplete. But anyway, would this be a real problem?
Is there any rule that kernel code needs a named author? As long as it has a
fitting license, shouldn't this be fine?
(tp_smapi and thinkpad_ec are gpl2 or later, hdaps is gpl2, so this should be
just fine)
cu,
--
Hanno Böck Blog: http://www.hboeck.de/
GPG: 3DBD3B20 Jabber/Mail: [email protected]
http://waldbesetzung.blogsport.de/ Waldbesetzung gegen Flughafenausbau
Frankfurt, 28. - 30.11.
http://www.jukss.de/ Jugemdumweltkongress, 27.12.-4.1.
Hanno Böck wrote:
>
> I wanted to ask if there is some status on possible kernel inclusion. On
> http://www.linuxdriverproject.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/OutOfTreeDrivers
> I read
> "will not be accepted upstream due to authorship issues (written by an
> anonymous developer)"
>
> Now I can see copyright notices in all source files, though they may be
> incomplete. But anyway, would this be a real problem?
> Is there any rule that kernel code needs a named author? As long as it has a
> fitting license, shouldn't this be fine?
>
We need to be able to identify who owns the copyright. For all we know,
the anonymous submitter might not have the right to his own work (work
for hire, etc.) or it could have been produced in violation of NDA
terms, etc.
-hpa
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:38 AM, H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hanno B?ck wrote:
>>
>> I wanted to ask if there is some status on possible kernel inclusion. On
>> http://www.linuxdriverproject.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/OutOfTreeDrivers
>> I read
>> "will not be accepted upstream due to authorship issues (written by an
>> anonymous developer)"
>>
>> Now I can see copyright notices in all source files, though they may be
>> incomplete. But anyway, would this be a real problem?
>> Is there any rule that kernel code needs a named author? As long as it has a
>> fitting license, shouldn't this be fine?
>>
>
> We need to be able to identify who owns the copyright. For all we know,
> the anonymous submitter might not have the right to his own work (work
> for hire, etc.) or it could have been produced in violation of NDA
> terms, etc.
There are several utilities maintained by this author, and finding
some way to merge the code has been tried more than once. If you look
back far enough, Andrew asked to have another of the project's members
sign off on the patch, and maybe that would be acceptable enough, but
afaik the author has never responded directly to that idea.
>
> -hpa
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM, J.R. Mauro <[email protected]> wrote:
> There are several utilities maintained by this author, and finding
> some way to merge the code has been tried more than once. If you look
> back far enough, Andrew asked to have another of the project's members
> sign off on the patch, and maybe that would be acceptable enough, but
> afaik the author has never responded directly to that idea.
We've discussed that in private at the time, and recently on LKML too.
In summary:
I'm fine with that, and so is everybody I talked to (including Linus),
except Greg KH who vetoed it since he believes the code is irrevocably
and contagiously evil.
Shem
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Shem Multinymous <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM, J.R. Mauro <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There are several utilities maintained by this author, and finding
>> some way to merge the code has been tried more than once. If you look
>> back far enough, Andrew asked to have another of the project's members
>> sign off on the patch, and maybe that would be acceptable enough, but
>> afaik the author has never responded directly to that idea.
>
> We've discussed that in private at the time, and recently on LKML too.
> In summary:
> I'm fine with that, and so is everybody I talked to (including Linus),
> except Greg KH who vetoed it since he believes the code is irrevocably
> and contagiously evil.
Does Greg know that both Linus and Andrew have ok'd a second signoff?
>
> Shem
>
Shem Multinymous wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM, J.R. Mauro <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There are several utilities maintained by this author, and finding
>> some way to merge the code has been tried more than once. If you look
>> back far enough, Andrew asked to have another of the project's members
>> sign off on the patch, and maybe that would be acceptable enough, but
>> afaik the author has never responded directly to that idea.
>
> We've discussed that in private at the time, and recently on LKML too.
> In summary:
> I'm fine with that, and so is everybody I talked to (including Linus),
> except Greg KH who vetoed it since he believes the code is irrevocably
> and contagiously evil.
>
Signed-off-by is about copyright, it's not a review issue. It means "I
certify that I know that the author had the rights to submit this code."
Code quality is important but separate.
-hpa
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:21:09AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> We've discussed that in private at the time, and recently on LKML too.
>> In summary:
>> I'm fine with that, and so is everybody I talked to (including Linus),
>> except Greg KH who vetoed it since he believes the code is irrevocably
>> and contagiously evil.
>>
>
> Signed-off-by is about copyright, it's not a review issue. It means "I
> certify that I know that the author had the rights to submit this code."
> Code quality is important but separate.
Indeed; so what were Greg KH's complaints, specifically? Were they a
code review issue or was just complaining about the anonymity issue?
(Note that Shem has also been willing to disclose is identity to
someone who would be willing/able to vouch that he's a real person,
and so we would have just as much legal traceability back to him as
any other piece of code which was submitted with a Signed-off-by.)
- Ted
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Shem Multinymous wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM, J.R. Mauro <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> There are several utilities maintained by this author, and finding
> >> some way to merge the code has been tried more than once. If you look
> >> back far enough, Andrew asked to have another of the project's members
> >> sign off on the patch, and maybe that would be acceptable enough, but
> >> afaik the author has never responded directly to that idea.
> >
> > We've discussed that in private at the time, and recently on LKML too.
> > In summary:
> > I'm fine with that, and so is everybody I talked to (including Linus),
> > except Greg KH who vetoed it since he believes the code is irrevocably
> > and contagiously evil.
> >
>
> Signed-off-by is about copyright, it's not a review issue. It means "I
> certify that I know that the author had the rights to submit this code."
> Code quality is important but separate.
We've discussed this issue on the internal suse mailing lists, and
concluded that the solution is simple: someone from IBM, Lenovo or
whoever they license the technology from should sign off on the code.
But implementing this got stuck at some stage.
Can anybody help with info about who's responsible for this part of
the ThinkPad?
Thanks,
Miklos
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Shem Multinymous wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM, J.R. Mauro <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> There are several utilities maintained by this author, and finding
> > >> some way to merge the code has been tried more than once. If you look
> > >> back far enough, Andrew asked to have another of the project's members
> > >> sign off on the patch, and maybe that would be acceptable enough, but
> > >> afaik the author has never responded directly to that idea.
> > >
> > > We've discussed that in private at the time, and recently on LKML too.
> > > In summary:
> > > I'm fine with that, and so is everybody I talked to (including Linus),
> > > except Greg KH who vetoed it since he believes the code is irrevocably
> > > and contagiously evil.
> > >
> >
> > Signed-off-by is about copyright, it's not a review issue. It means "I
> > certify that I know that the author had the rights to submit this code."
> > Code quality is important but separate.
>
> We've discussed this issue on the internal suse mailing lists, and
> concluded that the solution is simple: someone from IBM, Lenovo or
> whoever they license the technology from should sign off on the code.
That would be nice, yes.
> But implementing this got stuck at some stage.
>
> Can anybody help with info about who's responsible for this part of
> the ThinkPad?
SuSE has direct management-level and engineering-level contacts with the
Lenovo team responsible for the ThinkPad. IMO, the contact needs to be done
through those channels (which are Linux-friendly).
If SuSE decided not to do it, they must have had their reasons. I wouldn't
know them, but I can guess as much as anyone else, and my pet guess is that
they are waiting for an opportune time.
If you work with SuSE, you could try to use your internal channels to find
out what really is happening.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > Shem Multinymous wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM, J.R. Mauro <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> There are several utilities maintained by this author, and finding
> > > >> some way to merge the code has been tried more than once. If you look
> > > >> back far enough, Andrew asked to have another of the project's members
> > > >> sign off on the patch, and maybe that would be acceptable enough, but
> > > >> afaik the author has never responded directly to that idea.
> > > >
> > > > We've discussed that in private at the time, and recently on LKML too.
> > > > In summary:
> > > > I'm fine with that, and so is everybody I talked to (including Linus),
> > > > except Greg KH who vetoed it since he believes the code is irrevocably
> > > > and contagiously evil.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by is about copyright, it's not a review issue. It means "I
> > > certify that I know that the author had the rights to submit this code."
> > > Code quality is important but separate.
> >
> > We've discussed this issue on the internal suse mailing lists, and
> > concluded that the solution is simple: someone from IBM, Lenovo or
> > whoever they license the technology from should sign off on the code.
>
> That would be nice, yes.
>
> > But implementing this got stuck at some stage.
> >
> > Can anybody help with info about who's responsible for this part of
> > the ThinkPad?
>
> SuSE has direct management-level and engineering-level contacts with the
> Lenovo team responsible for the ThinkPad. IMO, the contact needs to be done
> through those channels (which are Linux-friendly).
>
> If SuSE decided not to do it, they must have had their reasons. I wouldn't
> know them, but I can guess as much as anyone else, and my pet guess is that
> they are waiting for an opportune time.
SuSE asked, Lenovo said no. We can probably try again...
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
On Mon 2008-11-17 15:27:04, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:21:09AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> We've discussed that in private at the time, and recently on LKML too.
> >> In summary:
> >> I'm fine with that, and so is everybody I talked to (including Linus),
> >> except Greg KH who vetoed it since he believes the code is irrevocably
> >> and contagiously evil.
> >>
> >
> > Signed-off-by is about copyright, it's not a review issue. It means "I
> > certify that I know that the author had the rights to submit this code."
> > Code quality is important but separate.
>
> Indeed; so what were Greg KH's complaints, specifically? Were they a
> code review issue or was just complaining about the anonymity issue?
Anonymity issue.
I'm working on similar driver for HP machines, and it would be great
to be able to test that on my thinkpad, so I'm willing to clean up
the code if required, maintain it, whatever...
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html