Re: [Qemu-devel] Add Markus Armbrusters code for Broadcom Perhiperals for ARM.

[John Bradley]

HI,
No worries about Yesterday.
I decided to take a different approach. I'll put that stuff in that relates to 
GDummyPanel flypie/GDummyPanel first I sent the patch to the list a copy is 
here. 0001-PATCH-V-2-GDummyPanel-Fix-formatingissues.patch

  
|  
|   
|   
|   |    |

   |

  |
|  
|    |  
0001-PATCH-V-2-GDummyPanel-Fix-formatingissues.patch
 Shared with Dropbox  |   |

  |

  |

 


Then set about getting the upgrades from Andrew Baumann in.
Then prepare an RFC for the  protocol used by GDummyPanel taking into account 
any feed pack on the prototype/proof of concept/risk reduction in the patch.

  
|  
|   
|   
|   |    |

   |

  |
|  
|    |  
flypie/GDummyPanel
 GDummyPanel - The Client App which links to the Raspi to help simulate GPIO  | 
  |

  |

  |

 
 John BradleyTel: 07896 839635Skype: flypie125 125B Grove StreetEdge Hill 
Liverpool L7 7AF 

    On Thursday, 18 May 2017, 8:47, Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> wrote:
 

 IANAL, this wouldn't be legal advice even if I was one, yadda, yadda,
here goes anyway:

Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:

> On 05/17/2017 04:25 PM, John Bradley wrote:
>> Well unfortunately Eric. I don't understand your "top posted" slang.
>
> To learn what top-posting is:
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+top-posting
>
> and why we don't like it on technical lists:
> http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
>
> Or more humorously:

Seconded.

> A: Yes.
>> >Q: Are you sure?
>>> >>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>>> >>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
>
>> 
>> As for his "intent", it is quite irrelevant as I have gone over the code 
>> line by line and what every he intended to do, he has succeed, as far as I 
>> can tell , in matching you standards, to such an extent that I am happy that 
>
> You are correct that the GPL gives us legal rights to use Andrew's code
> without his permission.  And yes, YOU can fork qemu, and take whatever
> GPL patches you want without attribution, and you are probably still
> just fine legally (as long as you still abide by the GPL in that you
> distribute sources to anyone that has your binary).
>
> But our project rules do not allow us to live by just GPL (in part,
> because the license of qemu is sometimes tricky to determine due to a
> mix of GPLv2-only code and non-GPL code, even though most new code is
> GPLv2+).  Also, if we ever had a reason to change license (supposing it
> is even possible, although it might require ripping out or
> reimplementing portions of the code base), having S-o-b means that we
> cannot be accused of applying a license that someone did not agree to.
>
> Therefore, it is easier, pragmatically, even if not legally necessary,
> to enforce proper chain of authorship by getting Signed-off-by: tags on
> ALL patches, especially where a patch asserts a copyright owner, insofar
> as the original copyright owner is still alive and able to assent to the
> action.  It is not just about legalities, it is also about risk-avoidance.
>
> It may sound like we are being hard-nosed (and so be it), but there's a
> reason that we list proper Signed-off-by: rules as our number 1 item on
> the SubmitAPatch page.
> http://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPatch

Yes, we require patch submitters to provide their Signed-off-by.

We encourage documenting a patch's provenance in full by having every
author provide their S-o-b, whenever practical.  But we don't require
it.

The core purpose of the S-o-b is "to improve tracking of who did what"
by making patch authors formally certify that they "wrote it or
otherwise have the right to pass it on as a open-source patch"[2].  Note
"improve" and "have the right to pass it on".

One of the (many) reasons we're making software free is to help our
neighbor[1] by letting him use our creation on a quid pro quo basis.
Always requiring all author's S-o-b could make incorporating otherwise
free code impractical, and thus would conflict with this mission.

When obtaining an S-o-b is impractical, documenting provenance in other
ways has to do.

John wrote upthread:

    Andrew Baumann has and others have release the code under GNU
    General Public License version 2 (GPLv2), the same as QEMU that
    allows me to added it to QEMU as it is under the same license, by
    signing it off this is what I am certifying.

I agree with the reasoning "if free software compatible with the GPLv2,
then I can incorporate it into QEMU as long as I certify by signing
off".

John, thank you for your contribution to QEMU.  I'm sorry your patch got
side-tracked into this non-technical swamp, and hope you understand why
we're rather careful when it comes to protecting the freedom of our
software.  I futher hope that we can put than behind us (along with
top-posting *grin*), and move on to the fun part.


[1] See "The four essential freedoms"
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
[2] 
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/plain/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst