Comment by rwmj

4 hours ago

The way you describe it, the developers all did the right thing. You contributed something to the patch, and even if it wasn't in your preferred final form (and it's basically never going to be for a kernel contribution of any significance), you were correctly credited.

If you didn't want to be credited you should have said.

Signed-off-by probably has some legal weight. When you add that to code you are making a clear statement about the origins of the code and that you have legal authority to contribute it - for example, that you asked your company for permission if needed. As far as I know none of this has been tested in court, but it seems reasonable to assume it might be one day.

> You contributed something to the patch, and even if it wasn't in your preferred final form (and it's basically never going to be for a kernel contribution of any significance), you were correctly credited.

I don't see how the "signed-off-by" attestation constitutes correct credit here. It's claiming that GP saw the final result and approved of it, which is apparently false.