From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail02.groups.io (mail02.groups.io [66.175.222.108]) by spool.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0707740046 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:15:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=gr4KSmPHvfjcdTwKkpxrUbLRSnRBs89MvCQNaxvi6wM=; c=relaxed/simple; d=groups.io; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:User-Agent:Subject:To:CC:References:From:In-Reply-To:Precedence:List-Subscribe:List-Help:Sender:List-Id:Mailing-List:Delivered-To:Reply-To:List-Unsubscribe-Post:List-Unsubscribe:Content-Language:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; s=20140610; t=1706886900; v=1; b=HO50M0xB2CW8oNZ81tXEbB5q7xu+URAnSNN7mIg2nZm5WevicJHcqiuWKQE13ceK4zRZt+dc NB8T0VS42LoMW7d49K8dqLSlsaKc1cumZwYMvRoUYGoNIsfEaYw/HwmDvLH1YD0nIs+j/Fglfu+ wFY48j2tEknO+0RYdW24//vs= X-Received: by 127.0.0.2 with SMTP id Aro1YY7687511xwZ26fwO4KH; Fri, 02 Feb 2024 07:15:00 -0800 X-Received: from mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com [205.220.168.131]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.25037.1706886899387217168 for ; Fri, 02 Feb 2024 07:14:59 -0800 X-Received: from pps.filterd (m0279862.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.24/8.17.1.24) with ESMTP id 412DL6tj006959; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:14:55 GMT X-Received: from nasanppmta04.qualcomm.com (i-global254.qualcomm.com [199.106.103.254]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3w0pwc1np8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 02 Feb 2024 15:14:55 +0000 (GMT) X-Received: from nasanex01c.na.qualcomm.com (nasanex01c.na.qualcomm.com [10.45.79.139]) by NASANPPMTA04.qualcomm.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTPS id 412FEsbh030145 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:14:54 GMT X-Received: from [10.111.142.180] (10.80.80.8) by nasanex01c.na.qualcomm.com (10.45.79.139) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1118.40; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:14:50 -0800 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:14:47 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v8 14/37] UefiCpuPkg: Add CpuMmuLib to UefiCpuPkg To: Pedro Falcato , Chao Li CC: , Laszlo Ersek , Eric Dong , Ray Ni , Rahul Kumar , Gerd Hoffmann , Baoqi Zhang , Dongyan Qian , Xianglai Li , Bibo Mao , Andrew Fish , "Kinney, Michael D" References: <20240126062715.3099433-1-lichao@loongson.cn> <20240126062919.3101691-1-lichao@loongson.cn> <3fe0fda8-d32e-679e-2f71-6cc35e7772b8@redhat.com> From: "Leif Lindholm" In-Reply-To: X-Originating-IP: [10.80.80.8] X-ClientProxiedBy: nasanex01b.na.qualcomm.com (10.46.141.250) To nasanex01c.na.qualcomm.com (10.45.79.139) X-QCInternal: smtphost X-Proofpoint-GUID: -UzeBoYWsIjdoDs-OwtNIc95n8Nl3fsx X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: -UzeBoYWsIjdoDs-OwtNIc95n8Nl3fsx X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com id 412DL6tj006959 Precedence: Bulk List-Subscribe: List-Help: Sender: devel@edk2.groups.io List-Id: Mailing-List: list devel@edk2.groups.io; contact devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Reply-To: devel@edk2.groups.io,quic_llindhol@quicinc.com List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe=One-Click List-Unsubscribe: X-Gm-Message-State: 32K42elvdPObWVcvKnO1GUvMx7686176AA= Content-Language: en-GB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-GND-Status: LEGIT Authentication-Results: spool.mail.gandi.net; dkim=pass header.d=groups.io header.s=20140610 header.b=HO50M0xB; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=quicinc.com (policy=none); spf=pass (spool.mail.gandi.net: domain of bounce@groups.io designates 66.175.222.108 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bounce@groups.io On 2024-02-01 19:36, Pedro Falcato wrote: > On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 3:05=E2=80=AFAM Chao Li wrote= : >> >> Hi Pedro and Laszlo, >> >> Part of the code in this patch is indeed quoted from the Linux kernel, a= nd 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? >=20 > +CC stewards >=20 > Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer >=20 > 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=3D1#L177 Chao, by adding your Signed-off-by to any patch and sending it out, you=20 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=20 been merged and *then* we found out about this. The *best case* scenario=20 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=20 you need to re-evaluate the existing patches based on this new=20 information you have learned. So that once you resubmit a version as per=20 Laszlos comments in separate email, you are comfortable that the whole=20 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. >=20 > (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 :/) >=20 -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- 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] -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-