Re: [Xen-devel] pv-grub Solaris support

[Kasper Brink <K.Brink@xxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 02:00:07PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> But I'm afraid I can't apply it because I need confirmation of the
> copyright status.  See the section on Signed-off-By on
>   http://wiki.xen.org/xenwiki/SubmittingXenPatches

The pv-grub_solaris patch I sent previously is:

 Signed-off-by: Kasper Brink <K.Brink@xxxxxxxx>

If you want, I will resubmit the patch according to the guidelines on the
wiki, along with any necessary changes to the license and copyright notices.

> Looking at the contents of your patch I see some worrying things.  Can
> you please find the licences for all the code you're including and
> arrange for appropriate copyright and licensing notices, copies of
> licences, etc. etc. ?

All the code in my patch was either taken from the "Oracle Solaris 11 Express
2010.11 GPL Source, Part 2" archive, downloaded from 
 http://dlc.sun.com/opensourcecode/solaris/sol-11-exp-201011-GPLSource_2.zip,
or written by me (small portions).

The code is licensed under the GNU GPL, version 2 or later ("GPL2+").
Each file from which I copied code contains a notice stating that it is
licensed under the GPL2+. Identical notices are present in the unpatched
pv-grub sources, so the diff itself does not contain this information (except
for newly added files).
I will add a GPL2+ notice to the header of the file 60zfs_solaris.diff. The
full GPL 2 license text is already in the Xen repository root, so I assume I
don't need to add that to the patch.

The copyright status is a bit more diverse (see the attached list for the full
details):
- all the files I copied code from have an FSF copyright notice
- most of these files also have a Sun Microsystems or Oracle copyright notice
- there are 7 files that contain ZFS- or Solaris-related code, but do not
  have Sun or Oracle copyright notices.
My patch preserves the copyright notices for all files, but does not add any
notices that are not present in the archive distributed by Oracle.

The files that do not have Sun or Oracle copyright notices are: builtins.c,
common.c, disk_io.c, filesys.h, pc_slice.h, shared.h, stage2.c.
I don't think I should add such notices myself, but I could add a comment
to each file along these lines:

/*
 * Portions of this file are derived from code distributed by Oracle in 2011,
 * licensed under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later.
 */


In summary, I propose to do the following:
- add a "distributed by Oracle" comment to the files without Sun or Oracle
  copyright notices, and rediff
- add a GPL2+ license notice to the header of 60zfs_solaris.diff
- resubmit the patch according to the submission guidelines, with my sign-off,
  and Samuel Thibault's acked-by.
Will this be sufficient to clarify the copyright status? 

Best,

Kasper

Attachment: pv-grub_solaris.copyright
Description: Text document

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel