On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 14:42 +0000, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
> ChangeSet 1.2464.1.8, 2004/11/05 14:42:03+00:00, [email protected].(none)
...
> Patch from Peter Chubb
>
Russell, please don't mangle the attribution in this way. Please include
a correct email address for the submitter of the mail, and in any
Signed-Off-By: lines. The idea is that we're supposed to be able to work
out who submitted stuff, and how to get in touch with them if we want
to.
--
dwmw2
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 10:41:58AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 14:42 +0000, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
> > ChangeSet 1.2464.1.8, 2004/11/05 14:42:03+00:00, [email protected].(none)
> ...
> > Patch from Peter Chubb
> >
>
> Russell, please don't mangle the attribution in this way. Please include
> a correct email address for the submitter of the mail, and in any
> Signed-Off-By: lines. The idea is that we're supposed to be able to work
> out who submitted stuff, and how to get in touch with them if we want
> to.
Tough. Shit. I'm not changing this. Sorry.
If you don't agree with my stance on the Data Protection Act, go and find
someone else to merge patches.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
2.6 Serial core
Russell King escreveu:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 10:41:58AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>Russell, please don't mangle the attribution in this way. Please include
>>a correct email address for the submitter of the mail, and in any
>>Signed-Off-By: lines. The idea is that we're supposed to be able to work
>>out who submitted stuff, and how to get in touch with them if we want
>>to.
>
> Tough. Shit. I'm not changing this. Sorry.
>
> If you don't agree with my stance on the Data Protection Act, go and find
> someone else to merge patches.
Ouch! In what way do you feel a proper "signed off by" contravenes the
Data Protection Act, the gist of which is that personal information may
be used only with permission and for the purpose for which it was given.
I would have thought that signing off the patch meets both those
criteria. Why do you think it doesn't?
Regards,
Chris R.
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 12:22:38PM +0100, Chris Ross wrote:
> Russell King escreveu:
> > On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 10:41:58AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >>Russell, please don't mangle the attribution in this way. Please include
> >>a correct email address for the submitter of the mail, and in any
> >>Signed-Off-By: lines. The idea is that we're supposed to be able to work
> >>out who submitted stuff, and how to get in touch with them if we want
> >>to.
> >
> > Tough. Shit. I'm not changing this. Sorry.
> >
> > If you don't agree with my stance on the Data Protection Act, go and find
> > someone else to merge patches.
>
> Ouch! In what way do you feel a proper "signed off by" contravenes the
> Data Protection Act, the gist of which is that personal information may
> be used only with permission and for the purpose for which it was given.
> I would have thought that signing off the patch meets both those
> criteria. Why do you think it doesn't?
Please read what the act says and consider what a personal email address
is, and consider that placing personal data from someone on a website or
placing it in BK in the EU is publishing personal data outside the realms
of the EU.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
2.6 Serial core
Russell King <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 12:22:38PM +0100, Chris Ross wrote:
>> Russell King escreveu:
>> > On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 10:41:58AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> >>Russell, please don't mangle the attribution in this way. Please include
>> >>a correct email address for the submitter of the mail, and in any
>> >>Signed-Off-By: lines. The idea is that we're supposed to be able to work
>> >>out who submitted stuff, and how to get in touch with them if we want
>> >>to.
>> >
>> > Tough. Shit. I'm not changing this. Sorry.
>> >
>> > If you don't agree with my stance on the Data Protection Act, go and find
>> > someone else to merge patches.
>>
>> Ouch! In what way do you feel a proper "signed off by" contravenes the
>> Data Protection Act, the gist of which is that personal information may
>> be used only with permission and for the purpose for which it was given.
>> I would have thought that signing off the patch meets both those
>> criteria. Why do you think it doesn't?
>
> Please read what the act says and consider what a personal email address
> is, and consider that placing personal data from someone on a website or
> placing it in BK in the EU is publishing personal data outside the realms
> of the EU.
Well, let people agree to their email address being published if they
wish. I personally don't mind it at all.
Is this the reason a patch from me is attributed to mru@com[torvalds]
on bkbits?
--
M?ns Rullg?rd
[email protected]
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 01:40:34PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Well, let people agree to their email address being published if they
> wish. I personally don't mind it at all.
That's extra overhead for scripts and such like which I'm unable to
ensure is safely implemented. Sorry.
Look, I _am_ taking the easy way out of this by completely avoiding
the issue by eliminating or munging email addresses such that they
can't be read as such. The alternative is that patches go into the
BK tree as "[email protected]" - but people don't like that
either. So the munging is a compromise to keep people happy.
If people find that unacceptable, here's what those people can do:
If someone wants me to change this, go find a UK solicitor who is an
expert in this area and who is willing to provide his services in this
area for free (hey, we're talking about my _personal_ activities here
after all which are _completely_ unfunded) to answer questions in this
area. Alternatively, the people with a problem can fund such a solicitor.
Anything short of that are just random opinions and carry no weight
what so ever, and I will not change my activities in a way which I
personally believe will infringe UK law.
(PS, bkbits itself seems to munge email addresses. Maybe someone
would like to complain to Larry about that?)
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
2.6 Serial core
Russell King <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 01:40:34PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Well, let people agree to their email address being published if they
>> wish. I personally don't mind it at all.
>
> That's extra overhead for scripts and such like which I'm unable to
> ensure is safely implemented. Sorry.
>
> Look, I _am_ taking the easy way out of this by completely avoiding
> the issue by eliminating or munging email addresses such that they
> can't be read as such. The alternative is that patches go into the
> BK tree as "[email protected]" - but people don't like that
> either. So the munging is a compromise to keep people happy.
>
> If people find that unacceptable, here's what those people can do:
>
> If someone wants me to change this, go find a UK solicitor who is an
> expert in this area and who is willing to provide his services in this
> area for free (hey, we're talking about my _personal_ activities here
> after all which are _completely_ unfunded) to answer questions in this
> area. Alternatively, the people with a problem can fund such a solicitor.
>
> Anything short of that are just random opinions and carry no weight
> what so ever, and I will not change my activities in a way which I
> personally believe will infringe UK law.
The other easy solution is to post a prominent notice somewhere
stating that by submitting a patch, you agree to the publishing of the
email address used when submitting said patch. Such schemes are often
used in Sweden to avoid these issues.
--
M?ns Rullg?rd
[email protected]