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

[Daniel Berlin <dan@dberlin.org>]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Andreas Jaeger wrote:

> Daniel Berlin <dan@dberlin.org> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> > Allow me to summarize.
> 
> Daniel, sorry that this situation arose.
Not as much as I am.
The change should have been a non-issue.

> 
> >
> > 1. Both Jiri, and I, have valid copyright assignments. 
> > 2. There is no question the FSF owns the copyright on this code, 
> > regardless of whether it is my derived work or not. 
> > 3. Thus, it's puzzling that Andrew would remove it, and in fact, seems 
> > reactionary and unhelpful.
> > 4. The code in question is based on code I sent Jiri, but had never sent 
> > to gdb-patches. 
> > 5. I knew Jiri would contribute it eventually, and have no problem with 
> > that.
> > 6. My only concerns are as follows:
> 
> Please accept my apologies that this happened. Jiri is doing his
> military service now and therefore not available for questions and
> comments.  I believe your claims above since I told Jiri to get in
> contact with you regarding your work on dwarf2 unwinding.
> 
> > 	1. The code is not marked as being derived from my work, when I 
> > can prove it is. (for those who question this, simply look at the dwarf2 
> 
> I do not questions this.  I have every reason to believe you.
> 
> > evaluator i sent to the mailing list many moons ago, and you'll see it is 
> > exactly the execute_stack_op Jiri contributed, with calls to abort() 
> > changed to internal_error, and a few small other changes I had made later.  
> > The other pieces of the code, were, as i said, never sent to the mailing 
> > list).
> > 	2. I use this code in other projects of mine.
> > 	3. The FSF assignments authorize me to request a non-exclusive 
> > 	license from the FSF  upon 30 days written notice. 
> > 	4. I may have a need to request this license at some point in the 
> > 	future.	
> > 	5. I do not wish to have trouble later on acquiring this license 
> > due to someone at the FSF, or elsewhere, claiming it's not my code, because it 
> > has no markings that identify as such.
> > 	6. I do not wish to have trouble later on with someone claiming 
> > the code in some product of mine (or someone else's product, if i licensed 
> > the code to someone else) is really Jiri's.
> >
> > As a result, I requested that a single line ("Based on code originally 
> > written by Daniel Berlin <dan@dberlin.org>") be added to the top of the 
> > file, stating that it is based originally on code I wrote.  This was to 
> > avoid any confusion as to the origins of pieces of the code.
> 
> Since Jiri is not available now, I'd like to emphasize that I'm fine
> with this patch and would suggest to get it added to CVS.

So would I.
I'll have to get a translator or something.


> > I am not asserting that Jiri wrote no portion of the code, and not 
> > asserting that he didn't make changes to the portions i sent him.  
> > Certainly, he did.  I'm thus not trying to devalue his contribution in any 
> > way.  I'm simply trying to avoid a problem in the future asserting that 
> > code I originally wrote, or work based on that code, is indeed, code I 
> > wrote, or work based on that code.
> 
> I agree that credit should be given to those people that worked on the
> code - in this case Jiri and yourself.

That's fine by me. 
> 
> 
> Daniel, I do believe you that it's not solely your code.  I do not
> know how much of the code is yours and what is Jiri's work but I do
> think that you laid the basis for the current code and therefore
> you're co-author of this code.
> 
> Let me assure that it's not SuSE intent to hijack somebody else's
> code.
Nor have I ever assumed SuSE had any intent.
As far as I'm concerned, it was just a simple oversight by Jiri.
In fact, I considered it such a minor oversight that i didn't even submit 
it as a separate patch, just as i didn't separate out the update of the 
copyright years.
> 
> I hope this clarifies the situation and the code can be added back to
> the repository together with both names on it,
So do I.
The extreme reaction of removing code from the 
repository, simply reminds me why i spend time working on GCC rather than 
GDB, and why i coded a replacement in C++ in the first place.
--Dan