[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

Uhm, what is the outcoming of this??? I tried the patch today and
succeeded in booting my fresh nexenta with it, so +1 by me.

(nexenta needs some grub tweaking as boot/grub/bootsign/syspool is
missing as well as a findroot (syspool,0,a) in menu.lst), but then all
is fine.


Am 01.11.2011 15:11, schrieb Kasper Brink:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Kryptografische Unterschrift

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.