Re: [Xen-devel] ACPI builder re-licensing

[Lars Kurth <lars.kurth.xen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Boris,

I can't remember how we managed this process the last time round (see for 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9172431/), but in that case we already had a 
patch. As far as I can see, we don't have the complete patch yet.

Thus, the question I would have to you is whether you want to prepare the 
complete patch first or get the approvals of all stake-holders first?

I also think we should establish two groups of people regardless of approach
A) A list of individuals with e-mails we need to get approval from 
B) A list of company reps which can provide approval on behalf of a companies 
contribution

What we did in https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9172431/ was to get ACKs from 
people in group A, and e-mail confirmation from people in group B.

Regardless of the approach, we also ought to write an explanation that is 
easily consumable for people in group B which may not be very involved in Xen.
- A short introduction outlining what see are trying to do and why (maybe refer 
back to this thread)
- Explain why we sent the explanation to person X (that would probably need to 
contain some boilerplate what (c) they and/or their orgs hold and why we 
contacted them)
- End with a question which they clearly can answer (and which we can copy as 
evidence into the changelog)

Would you be able to draft something? We can then distribute some of the 
activities based on existing personal relationships.

> On 12 Jul 2016, at 18:09, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Boris Ostrovsky writes ("[Xen-devel] ACPI builder re-licensing"):

>> Who needs to be notified
>> ===============
> 
> NB that what is required is not notification, but permission.
> 
>> which indicated major contributions (and therefore a required ack) from
>> Citrix/Xensource, Suse/Novell, Oracle/Sun, Intel.

This is group B stuff
- Citrix/Xensource can be James Bulpin or me
- Suse/Novell can be arranged by Jan or Juergen 
- Intel ought to be Susie Li 
- Oracle/Sun can be arranged by Konrad or you

Could you double check whether any of these maybe should go into group A? 

>> 
>> For the rest ("trivial" or "simple" is, of course, a matter of opinion):
>> 
>> * debian.com is a single trivial patch to a Makefile
>> 
>> http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=commitdiff;h=83f34fdcdd26c3dcc793c571e7b75c705bd92e7a
> 
> You mean debian.org.  Of course debian.org is not the author here and
> would not be the copyrightholder; Bastian Blank would be.  But I agree
> that this patch is trivial.

ACK

> 
>> * Fujitsu provided two patches, one trivial the other not completely trivial
>> 
>> http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=commitdiff;h=e451db15ef6198f5d21b84618c833ac276087d70
>> 
>> http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=commitdiff;h=ab438874b6a8ae955b337c36e7b3204e29b8d407
> 
> This second patch is nontrivial and therefore we need approval from
> Fujitsu.

The second patch was signed off by Kouya Shimura <kouya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I did see him post something on LKLM in Feb 2016 using the above e-mail 
address. 
So probably this could go into group A. If not, Kouya probably would know who 
can make the call on behalf of Fujitsu. 

> 
>> * net-space.pl is Daniel Kiper's (now, but not at the patch's time, at
>> Oracle) ISP. The patch is
>> 
>> http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=commitdiff;h=37fddaa5fe1a7e369827e4b9e25cdae5df9b3d7d
> 
> This patch is not trivial in copyright terms, so we need Daniel
> Kiper's approval.

We have Daniel's e-mail address, so this should go into group A. Not sure 
whether Daniel uses his old address still, which would be preferable.

>> * redhat is one trivial patch by Paolo Bonzini that has been reversed later:
>> 
>> http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=commitdiff;h=e4fd0475a08fda414da27c4e57b568f147cfc07e
> 
> If the patch has been reverted then we are not proposing to relicence.
> We need to be careful not to re-apply it without getting a new signoff
> from Red Hat.

We ought to check that. If not true, Paolo Bonzini should go into group A.

>> * IBM one patch from Stefan Berger
>> 
>> http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=commitdiff;h=9fd9787b0e7995ac5f2da504b92723c24d6a3737
>> 
>>  (plus what seems to inclusion of his work in
>> 
>> http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=commitdiff;h=883236e49a86a0174c6df61cac995ebf16d72b35)
> 
> The latter is rather sloppy practice :-/.
> 
>>  Also, ssdt_tpm.asl is explicitly copyrighted by IBM
> 
> So we need approval from IBM.

Stefan still seems to work for IBM, with stefanb@xxxxxxxxxx as e0-mail address. 
So Group A.

>> * A bunch of patches from from Simon Horman at Verge
> 
> So we need approval from Verge.

Group A: horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx

>> * xen.org are S-o-b by Keir, all from 2011.
> 
> I think those were work-for-hire by Keir with his XenSource/Citrix hat
> on and are now owned by Citrix.  We should reconfirm with Keir.

Group A. Should be straightforward.

Best Regards
Lars


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel