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
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.
1
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
This is the relevant documentation, right? git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux…
2
1
The condition is that the original source of the code is "indicated in the file", whatever "file" means in that context?
1
it seems to me like that's intended for maintainers of subsystems / stable trees, for the case where an existing patch mail is changed?
1
afaics the part above it says that for external GPL'ed code, the origin should be stated "in the file"
2
you should then bring this up on lkml as it's a core document that must be understandable by all potential contributors.
Jun 5, 2017 · 8:00 AM UTC