Re: [Patch V4 0/6] Update to Tiano Contribution Agreement 1.1

[Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>]

On 07/25/17 01:45, Michael D Kinney wrote:
> https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=628
> https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=629
> https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=642
> https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=643
>
> New in V4

> * Revert change to remove commit message details from
>   Contributions.txt. Instead, this section has been updated to support
>   both code and documentation patches.

> This new agreement does not have any changes for code contributions.
> It adds content to cover open source documentation contributions.

I was a bit confused why updating the source tree to 1.1 was then
justified, but "Patch v4 3/6" explains it well in the commit message.

I have one suggestion for patch 3: it says that CodeModule should be
omitted from docs patches. However, I suggest that we keep the same
format for docs patches as well; "CodeModule" (or rather "DocModule"
could refer to the chapter or section of the gitbook that is being
modified (chapters and appendices are kept in separate files --
sometimes even in multiple files in separate directories -- in the
docbook source trees anyway, and I think "DocModule" could be a logical
match).

Just my opinion of course.

Regarding patch 5, and the special handling of the OvmfPkg license file
-- today I commented on that in
<https://lists.01.org/pipermail/edk2-devel/2017-July/012547.html>:

> perhaps one root license file with a default license, and pathname
> patterns that cumulatively cover all of the exceptions. Or one license
> file per package, with a default license for the package, plus
> pathname patterns, where the patterns cumulatively cover all of the
> exceptions within the package.

IIUC, patch #5 would leave two license files in the tree, the tree-wide
default, and OVMF's with some exceptions (identified by pathnames). I
feel that representing exceptions with two methods ((a) separate license
files that override each other, and (b) pathnames in said license files)
is a bit confusing.

So I think we should *either* (1) have one core license file that spells
out all of the exceptions in the tree (by pathname), *or* (2) have
package-level, independent license files that spell out exceptions in
their own respective, containing packages. Currently patch 5 seems to be
a mix of the two.

(Note: I use *bold* above in an attempt to make myself clear; it
certainly doesn't mean that I "insist" on this. I don't feel very
strongly about this, so if you or Jordan disagree with my point, I'm
fine. In particular I seem to recall that Jordan disagrees with option
(1), and you likely disagree with option (2), because that's what we
have right now.)

Thanks
Laszlo