earlier replies
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
Does our current patch set satisfy you? Apparently not, but by your own standards you need to consider all past stuff we've published too.
1
You're using warped interpretations of the law and are being entirely hypocritical from a purely non-legal ethical perspective...
1
Replying to @CopperheadOS
i never misattributed copyright unlike you did.

Jun 4, 2017 · 3:56 PM UTC

1
Replying to @paxteam
You don't include attribution at all in the current work. You're not following your own rules (which have no legal basis anyway).
1
nobody includes all the necessry history in every copy either but then that wasn't my question either.
1
more replies