If I submit a patch and a maintainer (or anyone else) reads it and writes their own based on it, then they have edited my work. If they don’t attribute me at all, then they are plagiarizing. Maybe there is no law to protect me, but it’s social contract.
If it was taken verbatim, sure - while perfectly fine under the license, that would be a dick move. But you should also note that the commit contains an additional essay or two's worth of analysis and justification, and includes test sign-off from other people. Even if you disregard the difference in code, the difference in commits is huge.
And as mentioned elsewhere, this issue was submitted to security@, triggering a machine optimized solely for resolving issues quickly and correctly for the safety of the user-base, and not one suited for training new contributors. If this was submitted normally, it's quite likely that this would have gotten merged after an iteration or two - which could easily have taken a week or more.
There are typically multiple ways to write code to address a given issue. They might differ in aesthetics (including clarity of intend), but also performance, maintainability, extensibility and robustness. It's not uncommon that those who wrote the code to be fixed rewrite the patch in order to improve on aforementioned properties while avoiding lengthy back-and-forth when asking for improvement of the patch. They are often in a better position to do so due to familiarity with the code, it's history and (unwritten) development path.
That is by no means plagiarism. If not communicated clearly, can however lead to disappointment of those who submitted the patch. An 'inspired-by' comment would have been nice.
Yeah it just seems like a bad strategy on the maintainers part. Seems like one of those perfect places to teach a new contributor style guides and make them more useful in the future. To me approaching it this way comes off as disinterest in welcoming new contributors, which maybe now they’re not needed, but being so unwelcoming could one day leave us with no one capable of maintaining these projects.
It is plagiarism by definition if you don’t give credit to the person who wrote the original patch. Paraphrasing a source without citing it is certainly considered plagiarism in non-programming contexts (even if you think that you improved the prose style).
A patch, by definition is a modification of an existing piece of code, in this case a very small one. Now, it is possible that copyright protection would apply to such a small piece of code in that context but plagiarism usually does not involve a perfect record (the mailing list where the patch was submitted) that states exactly where the original work was submitted, what was done to it to make it ready for inclusion as well as an admonishment that the patch was not usable because it wasn't properly signed off.
Plagiarism means that the kernel maintainer included the code and pretended that it was their original creation and nothing of the sort happened so I don't think that word should be used in this context. Nobody doubts the OP wrote the code, nobody is saying that they did not and nobody passes it off as their own.
Misrepresenting your level of reliance on a particular source is plagiarism, and is uncontroversially recognized as such in any other context. If I say that I was inspired to study a particular problem by Paper X, but don't mention that my own paper includes several copied paragraphs of Paper X that I've lightly edited, then that is plagiarism.
If there is a public record that makes it obvious that you've plagiarised, then that doesn't mean you're not guilty of plagiarism. It just means you failed to cover your tracks.
None of this has anything to do with copyright. Not all plagiarism involves copyright violations and not all copyright violations are instances of plagiarism.
Well, for me the bar for plagiarism is apparently higher than for you, for me it is 'passing something off as your own' and that never happened here. I'm open to other definitions that I'm not currently aware of.
The commit log and associated metadata misrepresent the authorship of the code.
I am using the bar that you can find by googling 'plagiarism policy' and reading any number of documents explaining what constitutes plagiarism in an academic context.
Plagiarism is not a crime, so the kernel maintainers can choose to decide that it's socially acceptable in the context of kernel development if they want to.
I'm not sure if I'd agree with a 'very large chunk', but certainly I don't think this is an isolated incident. It's just that people don't usually make a fuss.
I think the basic issue stems from the fact that LKML sees patches as 'proposals' unless they can be included as is without further work. And any would-be contributor would be (heh) able to see that for themselves by looking at the many years of documented interaction between maintainers and the general public.
These long running projects all have their own styles and conventions for interaction (LKML itself being one of those) and the onus is on newcomers to familiarize themselves with that. Authorship, especially in the context of a project of this magnitude and with so many different people maintaining different parts of it is always going to be somewhat nebulous, because after all, you're changing a tiny little bit in a huge machine and anything worthy of copyright is usually expected to stand alone as a 'work'. That's definitely not the case here. And so the sign-off becomes a critical bit, if you omit that then you've just created a problem for the maintainer. Personally, I would never expect to be named author of a patch sent to the kernel mailing list, but if I wrote a sizeable subsystem then I would definitely expect that kind of recognition.
For patches like this your pay-off is the fact that they are taken into consideration at all.
The maintainer is responsible for quality and correctness. I don't know the specifics of this patch, but it's absolutely not strange for a maintainer to make changes with these goals in mind.
Hell, maintainers are usually more aware of broader concerns than the contributor.
I don't know the specifics of the patch either since OP has not linked their patch nor the final kernel commit. I don't understand why being a private list would be a problem since they can just post their patch on their website. Maybe they're waiting for the fix to hit mainline first.
But when someone submits a patch to any of my OSS projects and I want to make modifications to it before I merge it, I either keep the original author as the Author and make myself as Co-Authored-By, or make myself the Author and keep the original author as Co-Authored-By, depending on how much change I had to make to the original patch. In either case I also have the original author review my version to get their approval of my version.
The only case where I would not credit the original author at all (or only as Reported-By) is if my version had absolutely nothing to do with their patch, say they fixed the symptom in file X and I fixed the cause in file Y.
Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37674872 found the patches. If it was my project I'd consider these in the Author/Co-Authored-By category because they're basically the same patch.
