5 ms·
You and the person you responded to interpreted it exactly the same way, I think. This IBM employee isn't allowed to contribute to VNIC. Why? I dunno. But the
by gkoberger 6y ago
You and the person you responded to interpreted it exactly the same way, I think.
This IBM employee isn't allowed to contribute to VNIC. Why? I dunno. But the problem isn't if a personal address is used or not, but rather this specific IBM employee can't contribute to VNIC.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the fairness of that, but rather that the OP was saying "it wouldn't have been any better if they had used their IBM address."
To your last point... I doubt that's what's happening here. I don't think IBM wants ownership, but rather is protecting themselves from any sort of litigation or undermining an agreement.
- technion 6y agoThat's how I read the text initially - but the diff still notes multiple @linux.ibm.com email addresses as maintainers.
- cycomanic 6y agoYou're correct, I actually misread the original poster (or he/she edited their post?). Anyway, after reading a bit more through the thread, I did not realise that VNIC is a IBM driver. It seems like the real situation is a bit more complex. I would say though, the "You are an IBM employee 100% of the time" is really bad management IMO.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]