Return-path: Received: from extu-mxob-1.symantec.com ([216.10.194.28]:49269 "EHLO extu-mxob-1.symantec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752680AbZAMQmF (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:42:05 -0500 Received: from [172.20.25.81]([172.20.25.81]) (2845 bytes) by megami.veritas.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:smart_host/T:smtp (sender: ) id for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:40:17 -0800 (PST) (Smail-3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #15 built 2001-Aug-30) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:40:21 +0000 (GMT) From: Hugh Dickins To: Bob Copeland cc: ath5k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Jiri Slaby , maximlevitsky@gmail.com, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [ath5k-devel] ath5k_tasklet_rx BUG_ON(bf->skb == NULL) In-Reply-To: <20090113154204.M52697@bobcopeland.com> Message-ID: (sfid-20090113_174215_236381_ABF58AA2) References: <1231426017.922.2.camel@maxim-laptop> <20090110164705.GB10865@hash.localnet> <20090110201547.GA11261@hash.localnet> <20090113154204.M52697@bobcopeland.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Bob Copeland wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:35:29 +0000 (GMT), Hugh Dickins wrote > > I'll go ahead and push this upstream then today or tomorrow; Great, thanks - should include a Cc: stable@kernel.org I think. > let me know if you run into any problems with more testing. Sure, will do. > > > Changes-licensed-under: 3-Clause-BSD > > > > Hmm, I haven't noticed anyone doing that before: hope you're not > > starting a trend! I think you'll find (Documentation/SubmittingPatches) > > that your Signed-off-by agrees to the Developer's Certificate of Origin > > 1.1, which would put your patch under the same open source licence(s) as > > drivers/net/wireless/ath5k/base.c already contains - that's the usual > > case. > > I agree with all of the above, but the SFLC suggests we do it anyway. > > http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Wireless_Project_Suggests_Changes-licensed-under_Tag Interesting, thanks a lot for the pointer. I agree very much with Steve and Krzysztof. I'd be inclined to think that adding such a line in some patches would only tend towards making those which omit such a line more questionable for use under the BSD licence i.e. would weaken the BSD position rather than strengthening it as intended - though the Signed-off-by should override even that tendency. But it's certainly not an issue for my attention! Hugh