On 2017-11-18 01:13, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 00:43:46 +0100
> Martin Kepplinger <mart...@posteo.de> wrote:
>
>> But Greg, people are listening to you. Please don't give advice in
>> directions that are not clearly correct for Linux. You know you could
>> have simply ack'd the initial mistake-fix in that case. It wouldn't have
>> hurt anybody.
>
> Sigh, it wasn't my intent to get Greg in trouble.
>
> Martin... please don't blame Greg here. What's going on (IMO) is that
> you've stumbled into something that we have just now begun to figure
> out. We very much *want* to rip out all that boilerplate, but we don't
> yet have a consensus on the proper way to do it. We haven't really even
> had the discussion yet. You've just had the poor luck to wander in at
> the wrong time and become part of that discussion.
>
> I'll confess that, when I saw your first patch, it crossed my mind to
> answer much like Greg did. But Greg always gets there first :)
>
Alright, noone is in trouble already I hope. Maybe I was a little harsh;
sorry Greg. I know less about law than about programming which might
have made me a little nervous here; In the end I want things to work for
Linux.
> The files that you are touching mostly have listed copyright holders in
> them. Should you feel like putting a bit more energy into this, one
> thing to do could be to copy them on a new posting of the patch and ask
> for acks. Assuming you get them, we should be able to clean up a bit of
> cruft in a way that's clearly supported by the copyright holders.
>
Makes sense. Thanks for clearing this up a bit! So as fixing your "own"
files is easier, I'll do that first :)
martin
