Hi Stefano, > On 11 May 2022, at 21:06, Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 11 May 2022, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >>> I understand the patch is already written, so I was OK if you simply list >>> of the commits with the authors/tags for this time. >> >> I would like to understand where this requirement is coming from. >> >> @George: is there some kind of legal reason for something like that ? > > I am not George but I'll answer the legal question. Our "legal" document > is the DCO:
I agree with your analysis but I still think this is an area where we would need the confirmation from George. > > https://developercertificate.org/ > > This falls under case (b): > > (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best > of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source > license and I have the right under that license to submit that > work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part > by me, under the same open source license (unless I am > permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated > in the file; or > > So from the legal point of view only your Signed-off-by line is > required. > > I remember this well because I was confused about this a few years ago > in another case of taking code from Linux. > > >>> If both Stefano and you agree to not keep the authorships, then I will >>> not stand against it. However, I will not get involved in >>> committing and adding my ack. > > I am fine either way. My only request is to mention the Linux commit-id > that Bertrand used as a base and Bertrand has already done that. Ok > > >> I want first to clear up this process and understand why you are >> requesting this to know how I should do anything like that in the >> future. > > It looks like our process docs are not very good on this point and might > benefit from a clarification. I hope you are volunteering :-) > > Origin is defined as "it specifies the source of the patch" but it > doesn't say what actually is considered a "source". > > I suggest to distinguish between the case where commits are ported > individually from the case where code is copied over (like when we > introduced SMMUv3.) If commits are copied individually, I think we > probably want an Origin tag for each of them and the source is the > original commit-id. If the code is copied from Linux (like the SMMUv3 > case) then we probably only want to request a single Origin tag (or a > new tag?) with the base Linux version (5.18-rc3) rather than the > commit-id being backported. In that case the source would be the > repository baseline. Before defining our own way to do that maybe we should check how others are handling those cases to not reinvent the wheel. Anybody has a suggestion of an other open source project we could check which could have the same kind of “needs” ? Cheers Bertrand > > Cheers, > > Stefano
