From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-lb0-x229.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c04::229]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ac7tl-00061q-P4 for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 08:49:19 +0000 Received: by mail-lb0-x229.google.com with SMTP id bc4so84662637lbc.2 for ; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 00:48:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 12:15:04 +0300 From: Antony Pavlov Message-Id: <20160305121504.bec4f18e0b3bb403081a87d6@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6507601457136246@web20j.yandex.ru> References: <1457009332-27205-1-git-send-email-rndfax@yandex.ru> <20160304071152.GC21869@pengutronix.de> <4064341457088134@web21g.yandex.ru> <20160304145955.a02cc43b4d49ae2cc2897f97@gmail.com> <4943131457093089@web17h.yandex.ru> <5582221457124464@web27h.yandex.ru> <6507601457136246@web20j.yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ehci-hcd: remove useless timeout To: Aleksey Kuleshov Cc: Andrey Smirnov , "barebox@lists.infradead.org" On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 03:04:06 +0300 Aleksey Kuleshov wrote: > >> Was it so necessary? > > > > Yes. > >> Does Barebox really need this? > > > > Yes. > = > Oh, these are exhaustive answers, thank you :) > = > >> =A0Or it's just blindly following the rules made by Linux project? > > > > It's irrelevant if BB follows this practice blindly, or with extensive > > knowledge and understanding of all factors involved if the procedure > > involved is believed to be legally sound > > > >> =A0Do really small projects need to follow all such bureaucratic way r= ather than > >> =A0just growing up? > > > > Yes, project with identical licensing, regardless of their size, need > > to adhere to certain legal procedures in order to have a good case if > > they are ever in court. > = > So this means that every GPL'ed hello-world.c project should follow > Linux's rules "to have a good case if they are ever in court"? > = > And If think in this way then Barebox should create a Barebox Foundation, > hire a lawyer and wait until someone will sue them. But this is ridiculou= s, because > Barebox don't need this! That's why there is no Barebox Foundation with l= awyer. > = > >> =A0What if git history magically disappears? Only authors written in f= iles will be fixed, > >> =A0but all authors of patches will disappear as well. So this SOB fiel= d is only > >> =A0valid while "git log" gives you something to read. > > > > I don't understand the point you are trying to make. > = > SOB is just a matter of "git log". > = > >> But that's for Linux - companies, billions of dollars... What about B= arebox? > > Same license, same rules. > = > (see about GPL'ed hello-world.c) > = > > Aleksey, I am not really interested in continuing this discussion or > > trying to convince you to add SOB to your patch, so if any of the > > above explanations are insufficient for you, I am afraid we are going > > to have to agree to disagree on this subject. > = > I asked a simple question - still no use case of SOB in Barebox. Of course there is a use case for SOB in Barebox! Git has the 'Author' placeholder only for one person. If more that one person works on a patch then we can't put all their names into the 'Author' field. However we can use SOB to indicated co-authoring. --=A0 Best regards, =A0 Antony Pavlov _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox