Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753002Ab2KTVAE (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2012 16:00:04 -0500 Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com ([209.85.217.174]:36728 "EHLO mail-lb0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751910Ab2KTVAC (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2012 16:00:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:59:40 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: igc97tyvich5Z_DgWumiSIAsMW8 Message-ID: Subject: Streamlining Developer's Certificate of Origin, Signed-off-by tag To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1055 Lines: 21 So it turns out everyone and their mother's attorneys love the Signed-off-by tag and its definition as explained on the Linux kernel under the Developer's Certificate of Origin. Its to the extent other projects have picked it up and started documenting their own documentation for submitting patches to embrace the same definition, some without knowing what they were doing, some knowingly and rightfully doing so. I think it'd be good to see more embracement of the tag but to help do this it occurs to me perhaps it'd be good to treat the 'Developer's Certificate of Origin' as a standalone document that we can reference independently, and then have the kernel itself refer to it. That is, provide a unified easy way to refer to the practice for requiring the SOB tag and what it means. Thoughts? Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/