[Gta04-owner] Updates for gta04 DTS file.
Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller
hns at goldelico.com
Tue Jan 6 21:38:19 CET 2015
Am 06.01.2015 um 21:06 schrieb NeilBrown <neilb at suse.de>:
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 23:20:48 +0100 "Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller"
> <hns at goldelico.com> wrote:
>> Am 05.01.2015 um 23:02 schrieb Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns at goldelico.com>:
>>> Acking is the critical piece of work. Not formatting and sending patches. So your offer
>>> does not reduce significant work.
>> And, I would like to check and find out who the original author of the changes was
>> since they are in both trees.
>> If it was in our gta04-kernel tree and you have just copied it from there or were the
>> second to reinvent it, it should honestly be signed off by the original author (even
>> if Marek ack’s and you submit).
> I didn't copy anything. I wrote originals as needed. Had I copies yours I
> would have included your signed-off-by.
Ok, I see. I simply though that you had taken our DT and copied the relevant things,
because I had assumed that you did look into it for getting inspiration or a working and
It is difficult to decide what did lead to a patch.
Sorry for my misinterpretation.
> "Signed-off-by" isn't about authorship. The "Author" tag or "From:" line
> gives authorship.
> “Signed-off-by" is a statement about copyright.
Ok, this might be a wording issue introduced with slightly different copyright laws.
In Germany the author automatically owns the copyright and can’t transfer it. He can
only licence something (which is the same as transferring in practise). This background
has an influcence why my view is that author and copyright/signed off is the identical
and can be exchanged. But there are other legislations where it can and must be separated.
> See the "Developer's
> Certificate of Origin" for details (Documention/SubmittingPatches) but it
> essentially means:
> I wrote this or know who did, and I attest that it can be used under the
> relevant open source license (GPLv2 in the case of the kernel).
> If both you and I wrote identical patches, then there in clearly no
> significant creative input and nothing that can be copyrighted.
That is of course also right and makes the discussion quite irrelevant.
> In fact, we didn't write identical patches at all, though some of the code is
> the same. We split the code up into patches quite differently in most cases.
Ah, ok. I think I have learned something. Until now I always thought that software
is copyrighted. I.e. the resulting file. But apparently, the focus is on copyrighting
or licensing of patches. Which raises an issue like the one we discuss if two
developers independently come up with different patches that result in the same
> Still, if you think you wrote it first and want your code to go upstream with
> your authorship and your signed-off-by, please do that. I'd be very happy to
> see the code upstream no matter how it got there.
Ok. I understand.
Then we should do it this way.
More information about the Gta04-owner