From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.132.183.28; helo=mx1.redhat.com; envelope-from=lersek@redhat.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9127022361E40 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:50:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB7EA8535D; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:55:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-116-94.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.94]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 558E160BE0; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:55:55 +0000 (UTC) To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: "Kinney, Michael D" , "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" , Sean Brogan , "Yao, Jiewen" , "Justen, Jordan L" References: <20180207225822.28876-1-michael.d.kinney@intel.com> <20180207225822.28876-6-michael.d.kinney@intel.com> From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: <9b0620af-1791-760d-5cd5-b3ebba518784@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 09:55:54 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Thu, 08 Feb 2018 08:55:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [Patch 05/10] OvmfPkg: Add SafeIntLib and BmpSupportLib to DSC files X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 08:50:13 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 02/08/18 08:43, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 8 February 2018 at 01:35, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> On 02/08/18 00:48, Kinney, Michael D wrote: >>> Laszlo, >>> >>> The BmpSupportLib content was from contributions from >>> a capsule related branch. However, the BmpSupportLib >>> can be used for UX capsules as well as other places that >>> conversions between BMP and GOP BLT buffers are needed, >>> so it is a more generic feature. The SafeIntLib was also >>> based on content from the same capsule related branch but >>> also has uses other than capsules. >>> >>> Yes. I need to add Signed-off-by for Sean. > > I will note once again that our signed off by deviates from other > usage in the industry. > > Usually, a sign off is not an assertion of authorship. It means that > the submitter is able to submit the code under the license that covers > it. I think a license is not really interpretable unless the identity of the licensor can be established. I'd just like something in the commit message and/or the git metadata to spell out the shared authorship between Microsoft and Intel. > In our case, it means authorship, which is why we as > reviewers/maintainers add 'reviewed-by' not 'signed-off-by' like we do > in the linux kernel. > > So what if I want to merge code that is available under a suitable > license, but the author is not available to give his sign off, or > there are many (hundreds) of authors etc etc? The whole point of open > source licensing is that we don't *need* the explicit sign off of the > authors, because the license tells us what we can and cannot do with > the code. We may not need an explicit sign-off from the original author, agreed, but we need *something* that states that it was the original author that put the original work under the license in question. Patch #5 starts with: "From: Michael D Kinney " which means the git meta-datum for authorship will not credit Microsoft. Then, we also don't see a @microsoft.com email address anywhere at the end of the commit message. Finally, the code changes themselves don't add a Microsoft (C) to the DSC files. So we have a patch that is derived from original Microsoft work (at this point it is shared work between Intel and Microsoft), with none of the common attribution methods mentioning Microsoft. I don't insist on either form specifically, but *something* needs to be added, in my opinion. > I guess this is also related to the DCO vs contributed-under tags, but > in general, I think adding the sign off of people who are not involved > in the actual upstreaming of the code is wrong, and it is perfectly > fine for the author not to be in a s-o-b line. Fine by me; but please let us find another semi-formal method then that states that the original (non-upstreamimg) author has put the patch under the license that actually *permits* upstreaming now, without the original author's active participation. I thought the best method for this would be: """ Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1 Signed-off-by: Sean Brogan Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1 Signed-off-by: Michael D Kinney """ I may well be wrong about the specifics, but I feel that *something* should spell out Microsoft's co-authorship on this patch. Thanks Laszlo