Re: Linux Kernel Scheduling Addition Notification : Hybrid Sleepers and Unfair scheduling

[Mitchell Erblich]

Group,

		As a contractor or employee, the code that I write while being employed by them is owned by the company that I work for.

		It is then up to them / legal / management, etc  whether they offer that code implementation to kernel.org or a ISP,  insert it into their release,  or whatever….

		My notification is to say here is a minimal TOI, explain additionally where necessary, that I never saw a patch offered,  it exists, and I would be willing to repeat the code with a different implementation for FREE as an individual.

			If the code is within a networking area, then maybe a simple Request For Enhancement (RFE) that explains functionality, probably some minimal API, but the direction is NOT to offer an implementation of code.

		 Thus,,,,  is just a legal statement that needs repeating each and every time that make my offer.

			How rude is that?

		  Thus, Mike ,, your statement is totally uncalled for, inappropriate… and that being behind a email address does not excuse that.

		Mitchell Erblich
		Kernel Engineer
		


On Mar 18, 2015, at 8:59 PM, Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 20:43 -0700, Mitchell Erblich wrote:
> 
>> This proposal was ONLY to resolve the legal issue with public domain
>> code of notification when a patch was not offered.…
> 
> Ah, so completely off topic here.. but then you knew that.  How rude.
> 
> 	-Mike
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/