Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 24 Jun 2021 16:42:41 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Cc:     Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Ha=C5=82asa?= <khalasa@piap.pl>,
        Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] MEDIA: Driver for ON Semi AR0521 camera sensor
Message-ID: <YNSZ4fbboJokxZSx@kroah.com>
References: <m3r1gt5hzm.fsf@t19.piap.pl>
 <YNK5FhAXSpI1oHJV@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
 <m3mtrh5evo.fsf@t19.piap.pl>
 <YNM0cZFV7/LKKFBn@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
 <42958029-5625-5f4d-a075-2f59a74e0fb5@ideasonboard.com>
 <m3bl7v6er0.fsf@t19.piap.pl>
 <YNR2OkXL+wUaKuy4@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
 <YNR9CS/PfG7s1e71@kroah.com>
 <m3wnqj4ct3.fsf@t19.piap.pl>
 <YNSJzgJ5xu2j+U2p@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <YNSJzgJ5xu2j+U2p@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 04:34:06PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 03:22:48PM +0200, Krzysztof Hałasa wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> > 
> > Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> > 
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > 
> > > Putting the above line on a file _IS_ a legal declaration that the file
> > > is released under GPL-2.0.  It's pretty simple :)
> 
> Greg, on a side note, the discussion originated from
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/m3r1gt5hzm.fsf@t19.piap.pl/. I'll
> quote Krzysztof so the discussion doesn't get split across multiple
> places:
> 
> > > To spend time reviewing this code, I want to know it will be mergeable,
> > > and that requires a SoB line. That's a blocker I'm afraid.
> > 
> > So how do you propose to solve the situation, in which my driver is
> > rejected, but another persor takes it, makes changes (btw breaking it),
> > and presents it as their own, and it's accepted? This is a paid work and
> > I'm required to put in my employer's copyright over the code.
> > I could have made this error once - but no more.
> > 
> > The code will be mergeable, as I already wrote. Why would I bother
> > otherwise? But I cannot let that history to repeat itself.
> 
> Your opinion on this would be valuable too.

I would not waste my time on code that does not have a signed-off-by on
it, otherwise the developer is obviously saying they do not want to
merge this as-is.  And I think we all have plenty of code from
developers that actually want to have their patches merged.

thanks,

greg k-h