Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v8 14/37] UefiCpuPkg: Add CpuMmuLib to UefiCpuPkg

["Leif Lindholm" <quic_llindhol@quicinc.com>]

On 2024-02-01 19:36, Pedro Falcato wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 3:05 AM Chao Li <lichao@loongson.cn> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Pedro and Laszlo,
>>
>> Part of the code in this patch is indeed quoted from the Linux kernel, and do you think it is inapproparate? If so, we need to refactor this module, what are you suggests with the refactoring? Just remove the unused logic from the Kernel code and keep the logic good or refactor from scratch?
> 
> +CC stewards
> 
> Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer
> 
> It is wildly inappropriate. All of the code was clearly inspired by
> GPL and derives from the Linux GPL code, it's not just unused logic.
> You should triple check *every other patch* you've sent out for these
> kinds of GPL violations.

I want to highlight
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/ReadMe.rst?plain=1#L177

Chao, by adding your Signed-off-by to any patch and sending it out, you 
certify that:

(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
     have the right to submit it under the open source license
     indicated in the file; or

(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
     of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
     license and I have the right under that license to submit that
     work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
     by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
     permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
     in the file; or

(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
     person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
     it.

(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
     are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
     personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
     maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
     this project or the open source license(s) involved.

Now, that's a bunch of legalese, but it matters.
Mistakes happen, but it would have been a massive headache if this had 
been merged and *then* we found out about this. The *best case* scenario 
would have been that we would have been forced to revert the whole set.

I wouldn't say you need to "triple check every patch", but I would say 
you need to re-evaluate the existing patches based on this new 
information you have learned. So that once you resubmit a version as per 
Laszlos comments in separate email, you are comfortable that the whole 
submission conforms with the DCO.
And if you are unsure - ask. That's never wrong.

Pedro - many thanks for this. Owe you one.

/
     Leif

> There's another way of writing this sort of code (that doesn't involve
> all the Linux mm craziness) but I don't know if changing strategies
> would be considered getting rid of any shadow of GPL/IP violation.
> 
> (As a side note, I don't really understand IP in the software world.
> If you work, say, on GPL software for a moment in time, are you always
> going to be "GPL-tainted"? Surely not? Most people in the industry
> I've talked to about this say that, yeah, no, corps don't expect that.
> But no one really seems to have drawn a line between OK and not-OK,
> but rather "please please don't sue us". And in this case I don't know
> (but I suspect it'd be uncomfortable) for someone to redesign a
> solution right away, after being "tainted". Anyway, tough problem, and
> IANAL :/)
> 



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#115059): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/115059
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/103971653/7686176
Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [rebecca@openfw.io]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-