earlier replies
Replying to @paxteam
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
i never misattributed copyright unlike you did.
1
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
Sure, and the commit messages don't refer to PaX to meet any legal requirements and we don't need to have commit messages at all.
2
Replying to @CopperheadOS
which is why i asked who the copyright owner is. git's way of tracking it is the author line, your commit is lying about it.

Jun 4, 2017 · 4:12 PM UTC

1
Replying to @paxteam
It isn't lying about anything and no, Git doesn't track copyright. That certainly isn't how it's used by the Linux kernel project. Bullshit.
2
You're the one making misrepresentations and false claims.