nitter.vloup.ch/paxteam/status/8… Your own copyright headers say "PaX Team" and sure that's not a legal entity... you don't use your real name.
PaX Team @paxteam
4 Jun 2017
Replying to @CopperheadOS @_minipli
'PaX' isn't an entity can own copyright. mentioning it is at best a courtesy (appreciated), but it's not copyright acknowledgement.
3
1
3
i.e. the copyright headers on the GCC plugins. There isn't either attribution or copyright headers given for the rest of the PaX patches.
1
You've been publishing patches for years without giving attribution to the people that contributed to them as part of the works you publish.
2
It's stated where the __ro_after_init changes come from in the issue filed in the issue tracker about it if you claim out-of-band is okay.
2
btw, why do you keep talking about this when the topic is the slab sanitization feature?
1
That commit message already says where it comes from, so made a reasonable assumption you meant the 2 that didn't yet mention PaX in them.
1
And as pointed out that the PaX patches that *you* publish do not give attribution for this feature. Hypocritical.
2
1
it's a lie, slab sanitization was fully credited in pax-linux-3.10.3-test4.patch (too long to quote here even). ask the author if in doubt.
1
That's not a lie. There's no attribution given in current patches. If past, out-of-past credit is all you think is required that's done.
2
Replying to @CopperheadOS
how does the commit i linked you to establishes the copyright owner of that code? you have yet to answer my initial question.

Jun 4, 2017 · 3:54 PM UTC

1
Replying to @paxteam
It's not a meaningful question. Commit messages aren't relevant to following the license. We could publish a monolithic patch as you did.
2
Preserving attribution / copyright headers is required. It's all GPL2 code though. Don't need to go above and beyond what that requires.