From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::242; helo=mail-it0-x242.google.com; envelope-from=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mail-it0-x242.google.com (mail-it0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E65B622361E49 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 23:38:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it0-x242.google.com with SMTP id k131so5486867ith.4 for ; Wed, 07 Feb 2018 23:43:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=RpvL50nR/iZwJnEs5TFgnZyvDLzYSoPbDeHW5k18CYk=; b=E+GU2azGhvHCHU0vaaz7+SCA+32eT6w0eQBwZBLmqLAItIAboQ2P5n8yr602IGrjmn ZX3nvO4ys1br5XSMMgaZPM2vh473qUL9YS/+nSLUZy8V4TNFOeSmopGl7a62QXhzcLUa fOEQmkizdyjjIENX6Z6ugDnH2kblgeTS2Uw2w= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=RpvL50nR/iZwJnEs5TFgnZyvDLzYSoPbDeHW5k18CYk=; b=BFPs7ceLF4UH7UcIxNP2p1h9J6sjcfa1PMVJ2D2VfYLrGsV6FN2Al8S27B9kZP07GA 8AzWxFyxHnxjyYaE0BQWUeXyfpAmiA7Tj/48L23T9hz7V+I+zqmngCE4T6c1iqzL4MU0 Gl8UaDeLVqOCQNL8f3+NcttY4XH1338d0HIJGMQD41Roi4EvatDiVyZmMlerixIRUhC+ Nc/GTT6OFfdXaL6emrYZyGg/1OkXTdX2oFwH3mRGeDYTwsBzx8xeRIjECMjqWMVxCHa1 e3sxsMoGAQeiBc/8HKkucbhQ27taNMhxGKwgT4crFkR/HjQiPVrO1Ougg/wfZ6Dki/4E o+aQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBM/66stYKPoTJAbOAYL3Nj7dAenR0HX7bAeAzPx6ml9PoCN0tc 2g1WyKyoTYaXGfpM4KcCXYCMLcr0a8NDDJl9D5H6IQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224wpYBhvlSTVvQ5YPCj9xccrYak4M2xBSfuT09hHsnFyNx29nSz6X8Q+yspj9IUOKTyGO5aIVIdZ0cpatsKiWs= X-Received: by 10.36.39.215 with SMTP id g206mr219878ita.17.1518075824530; Wed, 07 Feb 2018 23:43:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.112.13 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 23:43:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20180207225822.28876-1-michael.d.kinney@intel.com> <20180207225822.28876-6-michael.d.kinney@intel.com> From: Ard Biesheuvel Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:43:44 +0100 Message-ID: To: Laszlo Ersek Cc: "Kinney, Michael D" , "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" , Sean Brogan , "Yao, Jiewen" , "Justen, Jordan L" 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 07:38:01 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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. 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. 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. -- Ard.