From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25996 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2002 01:59:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 25969 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2002 01:59:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dberlin.org) (64.246.6.106) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Mar 2002 01:59:15 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by dberlin.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2R1xCm13514; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 20:59:12 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:59:00 -0000 From: Daniel Berlin To: Andreas Jaeger cc: Andrew Cagney , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] Let dwarf2 CFI's execute_stack_op be used outside of CFI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00519.txt.bz2 On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > Daniel Berlin 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 ") 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