I'm not arguing with any established contribution process. I'm arguing with your interpretation of this entire issue because it's plain and simply uncharitable

I'm not arguing with any established contribution process. I'm arguing with your interpretation of this entire issue because it's plain and simply uncharitable and wrong and furthermore doesn't come from any position of authority. You've littered the entire comments section with your snooty attitude and it really doesn't progress the dialog one bit. More importantly, it's not how a community should treat contributors which is why I'm even commenting in the first place. I can handle internet divas being pathetic asshats on HN when it's only hurts themselves. I can't handle the same at the expense of a well-meaning contributor who put in hard work to fix an issue that makes the kernel better for everyone and especially where it involves spreading blatant misinformation about how the kernel community supposedly is allowed to treat people, and takes liberties with IP law. I even tried to reach a middle ground understanding and you've doubled down asserting that there's no world in which the author's lived experience can be valid because he didn't initially add a signed-off-by line. If you actually read the post, the author spends most of the time describing the issue and the fix. He takes maybe 5 sentences to explain how he didn't feel like his contribution was accepted in a considerate manner and it's discouraged him from making further contributions. It's not some grand 1000 work attack and if anybody has the thick skin to withstand one of those it's the goliath of the LKML. Anyway, the author pretty explicitly states that he did go back and forth with the maintainer privately and provided a fixed up patch which addressed feedback he'd received on the first patch (presumably with a signed-off-by line, now) and the maintainer still didn't want to give credit. You've conveniently ignored this part of the narrative entirely. This really discredits your whole "it was a quick security list issue and wasn't even formatted properly lol this guy obviously deserves no respect for engaging the security list and generally being a noob" angle. Everything that we know points to the contributor trying to act responsibly by engaging the security list first since they didn't know the security impact of a possibly major security issue (overwriting the stack of a traced process). I completely fail to understand your logic whereby doing so means the OP obviously fucked up and deserves to have his contribution belittled and stolen and that's just life on the LKML... seriously I think it's time you just admit you're in the wrong here and stop shit posting. We've already been through the whole "you shouldn't need to have thick skin and tolerate insults and disrespect to contribute to the linux kernel" as a community. Linus even took a leave of absence over this shit. Your stance that this stuff is acceptable and par for the course is no longer the status quo. Grow up.