On 05/17/2017 03:53 PM, John Bradley wrote: > Andrew Baumann has and others have release the code under GNU General Public > License version 2 (GPLv2), the same as QEMU that allows me to added it to > QEMU as it is under the same license, by signing it off this is what I am > certifying.
See this document linked from the SubmitAPatch link (it describes the kernel meaning of S-o-b tags, although the qemu meaning is the same): https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches?id=f6f94e2ab1b33f0082ac22d71f66385a60d8157f#n297 Yes, your Signed-off-by: asserts that you are okay releasing your portions of the patch (bullets a, d) and that you chased down that portions that you did not write are properly licensed (bullet b), but what you are missing is that when you modify someone else's patch, we also need that someone's assertion of intent that their work (whether or not modified by you) meets the same standards (bullet c). In other words, when modifying a patch, S-o-b lines should be additive in nature, rather than replacing his by yours (or, if his is missing in the source you originally copied from, then we really need to Andrew to chime in and add one); this is so that there is a full chain of custody on who wrote portions of the commit. > John BradleyTel: 07896 839635Skype: flypie125 125B Grove StreetEdge Hill > Liverpool L7 7AF Your mailer is sending very poor formatting when rendered as plain text (and we frown on html mail on this list). > > On Wednesday, 17 May 2017, 20:11, Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 05/17/2017 01:34 PM, John Bradley wrote: >> This is especial true as I meant Andrew Baumann 0xabu (Andrew Baumann) > > Top-posting is not nice on technical lists. And yet, in spite of me mentioning it, you still top-posted. :( -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
