3 ms·
FWIW, that "Signed-off" gate isn't as solid a shield as one might want. If someone put the work in to identify a bug, contributed a fix, and that fix wasn't ac
by shadowgovt 3y ago
FWIW, that "Signed-off" gate isn't as solid a shield as one might want.
If someone put the work in to identify a bug, contributed a fix, and that fix wasn't accepted but another fix inspired by the previous fix was accepted... That could be plagarism.
Burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the fix was inspired by the RCA and proposed fix, of course, but this isn't exactly a clean-room work and kernel maintainers should probably be careful about taking ideas without signoff on the lead-in side too. There's a reason Marvel et. al. in the publishing world can't accept new character concepts.
- yencabulator 3y agoThe purpose of DCO is to move the guilt of plagiarism etc from the Linux kernel project to the individual contributor who added the Signed-off-by line. https://developercertificate.org/ https://developercertificate.org/ > (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I have the right to submit it under the open source license indicated in the file; or etc
- shadowgovt 3y agoIndeed. What I'm saying is it might not work to remove that guilt if a bug is reported and a solution presented, and then instead of incorporating the solution presented the kernel team (without DCO in hand) fixes the bug using code that looks suspiciously inspired by the provided solution. This is murky enough that it would have to be decided in the court of law, but it's not cut and dry enough that it would be immediately thrown out of that court of law.