Re: [PATCH] Let dwarf2 CFI's execute_stack_op be used outside of CFI

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

[I'm sure Richard Stallman doesn't want to be dragged into such an 
exchange, however]

Given there is currently a dispute over the origins of the file 
dwarf2cfi.c, I'm removing it from GDB.

Once that dispute has been resolved, the file can, again be accepted.

I should note that resolving this will likely take time - Jiri is 
currently uncontactable, so I'm going to to have to try to follow this 
up with his peers.

sigh,
Andrew

> I also added my name to the top of the file, since in reality, it's based 
>> > > on code I sent Jiri.
> 
>> > 
>> > I'd let Jiri make that decision.
> 
>> No.
>> This is not his decision to make.
>> A lot of it is my code, unchanged (you can check the x86-64.org 
>> repository, for the huge change that replaced his code with mine)
>> He never gave me any credit when he contributed it, for some reason, 
>> probably because I never asked for it.
>> I've still got the email I sent him when he asked for the code, and i'm 
>> sure he'd be happy to confirm he used it.
>> 
>> >From a legal standpoint, while the copyright is transfered to the FSF, the 
>> non-exclusive license they grant back to the contributors code should go 
>> to me as well as Jiri, not just to Jiri.  This is part of of the contract of the 
>> copyright assignment with the FSF.
>> Thus, in order to ensure this is possible (not that i plan on using the 
>> license for anything at the moment), i'm making sure it's clear that the 
>> code contributed was not soley Jiri's.  
>> So, that way, in the future, if I ever cared to license the code to 
>> someone else, or do something with it, I can without someone asserting 
>> it's only the FSF and Jiri's.
> 
> 
> Please be aware, by the way, that if you don't accept the change to the 
> top of the file, i'll be forced to go bug RMS/the FSF about it, as I'm 
> sure they'd want the code correctly identified as well.
> 
> I'm not asking that I be given credit for something I didn't do.  Nor am I 
> attempting to diminish in any way the size,quantity, or quality, of 
> Jiri's contribution.  I am simply requesting that it be properly 
> identified as a derivation of code I wrote.
> 
> It's imperative that the lineage of code be correctly identified (in fact, 
> if GDB had a legal team, it's the first thing they'd do). In most cases, 
> you can determine it from the cvs annotate/the changelogs. However, for 
> new contributions, there is no history.  Since I never sent the code 
> in question to gdb-patches, it also has no record there.
> 
> I only care because I've been getting an increasing number of requests 
> from companies wanting to buy the source code to the C++ debugger I wrote 
> to replace GDB ( Of course, it uses a variant of the code in question to 
> read/execute frame ops).  I blanket refuse such requests in the hopes that 
> they'll take the money and pay for GDB work instead, but it's something 
> i'd consider if times ever  got really tough.  If there is one thing 
> having three rabbits (rabbits  can't learn through negative reinforcement. 
> i.e. reprimanding them after they have done something wrong does no good) 
> as pets has taught me, it's that it's much easier to make sure a situation 
> never happens, than it is to try to do something about it when it 
> occurs.
> 
> It's not just me, either.  If Jiri/SuSE wanted to license the code to 
> someone, he/they  might accidently sign something saying he was the sole 
> author, which could make him/them liable, etc.
> 
> In short, i'm simply trying to eliminate something that could come back to 
> bite me, or others, in the ass, later.
> 
> If you really want proof it's my code, I can happily provide this as well.
> 
> Since I know you get bogged down in mail, i'll give you till the end of 
> the month before I go bug RMS and the FSF about this.
> 
> --Dan
> 
> 
>