From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42268) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XEAIo-0003pr-GW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 00:55:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XEAIj-0004fS-2r for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 00:55:18 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f175.google.com ([209.85.192.175]:41738) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XEAIi-0004fH-Tf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 00:55:13 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f175.google.com with SMTP id r10so8932786pdi.20 for ; Sun, 03 Aug 2014 21:55:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53DF1227.5080101@ozlabs.ru> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 14:55:03 +1000 From: Alexey Kardashevskiy MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <537C2358.3080201@ozlabs.ru> <537C5AE5.3080300@redhat.com> <537C7103.4040109@suse.de> <538D4690.6090807@ozlabs.ru> <538DB3CA.7090001@ozlabs.ru> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] fpu/softfloat.c licensing List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Alexander Graf , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , Tom Musta , Anthony Liguori , Paolo Bonzini , Michael Ranweiler , Paul Mackerras On 06/03/2014 09:42 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 3 June 2014 12:38, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >> On 06/03/2014 07:45 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> On 3 June 2014 04:52, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >>>> Is there anything I can do to help with this? Chase someone down? :) >>> >>> Confirming that your lawyers are happy with the approach >>> Anthony proposed to take to fixing this would probably >>> be useful :-) >> >> Let me refresh. Anthony suggested this - >> http://marc.info/?l=qemu-devel&m=136725946312880&w=4 >> >> To complete this, we need ack from a lot of people and three of them ( >> Fabrice Bellard, Jocelyn Mayer, Thiemo Seufer) have not ack'ed yet so we >> either have to revert their changes (mwahaha) or we are stuck here. > > Essentially, yes. In particular it's not clear to me > exactly how "clean room" our reimplementation of the > bits of code we need to revert and rewrite has to be. > > Also is it sufficient to say "I started with the -2a > codebase and applied a lot of patches to it, and ended > up with a git commit which looks like "just change the > comment style", or does our git history really need to > look like "remove the -2b code, apply the -2a code, > reapply intervening changes"? The former has the > benefit of not breaking bisection, but if you look > at the commit it looks a bit odd that we can remove > the -2b licensing taint without actually touching most > of the lines of code in the files... Our lawyers refused to provide any public advise on this :-/ Is that it, end of story? :) -- Alexey