Re: [Xen-devel] ACPI builder re-licensing

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/13/2016 09:21 AM, Lars Kurth wrote:
> Boris,
>
> I can't remember how we managed this process the last time round (see for 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9172431/), but in that case we already had 
> a patch. As far as I can see, we don't have the complete patch yet.
>
> Thus, the question I would have to you is whether you want to prepare the 
> complete patch first or get the approvals of all stake-holders first?

I certainly can (and should) prepare and post the patch but I thought we
should first come up with (A) list at the least. OTOH, we can at least
review the patch first here on xen-devel without bothering people from
that list with revisions. So yes, I will.

>
> I also think we should establish two groups of people regardless of approach
> A) A list of individuals with e-mails we need to get approval from 
> B) A list of company reps which can provide approval on behalf of a companies 
> contribution
>
> What we did in https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9172431/ was to get ACKs 
> from people in group A, and e-mail confirmation from people in group B.
>
> Regardless of the approach, we also ought to write an explanation that is 
> easily consumable for people in group B which may not be very involved in Xen.
> - A short introduction outlining what see are trying to do and why (maybe 
> refer back to this thread)
> - Explain why we sent the explanation to person X (that would probably need 
> to contain some boilerplate what (c) they and/or their orgs hold and why we 
> contacted them)
> - End with a question which they clearly can answer (and which we can copy as 
> evidence into the changelog)
>
> Would you be able to draft something? We can then distribute some of the 
> activities based on existing personal relationships.


Will do and post as the preamble to the patch for review.


>
>> On 12 Jul 2016, at 18:09, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Boris Ostrovsky writes ("[Xen-devel] ACPI builder re-licensing"):
>>> Who needs to be notified
>>> ===============
>> NB that what is required is not notification, but permission.
>>
>>> which indicated major contributions (and therefore a required ack) from
>>> Citrix/Xensource, Suse/Novell, Oracle/Sun, Intel.
> This is group B stuff
> - Citrix/Xensource can be James Bulpin or me
> - Suse/Novell can be arranged by Jan or Juergen 
> - Intel ought to be Susie Li 
> - Oracle/Sun can be arranged by Konrad or you

Konrad is already doing this for Oracle.

>
> Could you double check whether any of these maybe should go into group A? 

Changes from those companies came from multiple submitters so it seems
that getting a single ACK from a rep would be easier?


...

>>> * net-space.pl is Daniel Kiper's (now, but not at the patch's time, at
>>> Oracle) ISP. The patch is
>>>
>>> http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=commitdiff;h=37fddaa5fe1a7e369827e4b9e25cdae5df9b3d7d
>> This patch is not trivial in copyright terms, so we need Daniel
>> Kiper's approval.
> We have Daniel's e-mail address, so this should go into group A. Not sure 
> whether Daniel uses his old address still, which would be preferable.

I spoke with Daniel and he is fine ACKing this.

>
>>> * redhat is one trivial patch by Paolo Bonzini that has been reversed later:
>>>
>>> http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=commitdiff;h=e4fd0475a08fda414da27c4e57b568f147cfc07e
>> If the patch has been reverted then we are not proposing to relicence.
>> We need to be careful not to re-apply it without getting a new signoff
>> from Red Hat.
> We ought to check that. If not true, Paolo Bonzini should go into group A.

In principle we could in the future decide to do exactly what Paolo's
patch originally did (which was to remove the 'if' condition). There is
no way to do it any differently than how Paolo's patch did it.

-boris



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel