Return-path: Received: from khc.piap.pl ([195.187.100.11]:53810 "EHLO khc.piap.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753068AbXI0URq (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:17:46 -0400 To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: New 'Changes-licensed-under' tag introduced for Linux-wireless References: <43e72e890709271100n39f16c18x723dc7a85d418666@mail.gmail.com> <20070927110950.0561eca1@freepuppy.rosehill> From: Krzysztof Halasa Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:17:43 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20070927110950.0561eca1@freepuppy.rosehill> (Stephen Hemminger's message of "Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:09:50 -0700") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Stephen Hemminger writes: > No, please don't down this legal rat hole. It would cause bullshit like > people submitting dual licensed patches to the scheduler or GPL only > patches to the ath5k or ACPI code. Precisely. Signed-off-by means the patch author already authorized the patch to be applied. With the patch merged the conditions still in the file (project etc) apply and not some obscure email tags. If someone really wants to change licencing conditions then the licence conditions in the source code must be changed. > Instead, add a section to Documentation/SubmittingPatches that clearly > states that all changes to a file are licensed under the same license > as the original file. I don't feel legally qualified to write the correct > wording. Current Documentation/SubmittingPatches: Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I have the right to submit it under the open source license ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ indicated in the file; or ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- Krzysztof Halasa