Re: [PATCH] Let dwarf2 CFI's execute_stack_op be used outside ofCFI

[Daniel Berlin <dan at dberlin dot org>]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote:

Allow me to summarize.

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:

	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 
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 <dan@dberlin.org>") 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.

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.

This is a simple matter, and one that should *not* be requiring this type 
of argument.  Almost all the code i've sent to gdb-patches, ever, is 
related to DWARF2 debugging support. Portions of the code are 
still basically identical to code I *have* sent to gdb-patches (though 
some large portions were never sent there).  Jiri has never claimed he 
wrote all the code, only that he contributed it.  I've also mentioned 
before that the code in question is based on my work, no one has 
disagreed. Thus, I'm not sure why Andrew feels the need to remove to it 
(since clearly, it's covered by an FSF assignment, both mine, and Jiri's), 
or to make a big deal out  of me adding such a line to the top of the 
file.  It's not as if i am  trying to usurp code that isn't mine. Or 
trying to claim that the FSF has no rights to the code.  Rather than 
simply let the change be made, and be done with it, he felt the 
urge to assert that it was Jiri's decision to mention whether the code is 
based on work originally by me or not. I disagree. The lineage of code 
should be clearly identified, precisely to prevent the kinds of problems i 
mentioned as my concerns.  In effect, Andrew's decision to assert this 
only makes my concerns larger that it is believed to be solely Jiri's 
code, when it is indeed not.  

--Dan 

 > [I'm sure Richard 
Stallman doesn't want to be dragged into such an > exchange, however]
> 
> Given there is currently a dispute over the origins of the file 
> dwarf2cfi.c, I'm removing it from GDB.
> 
> Once that dispute has been resolved, the file can, again be accepted.
> 
> I should note that resolving this will likely take time - Jiri is 
> currently uncontactable, so I'm going to to have to try to follow this 
> up with his peers.
> 
> sigh,
> Andrew
> 
> > I also added my name to the top of the file, since in reality, it's based 
> >> > > on code I sent Jiri.
> > 
> >> > 
> >> > I'd let Jiri make that decision.
> > 
> >> No.
> >> This is not his decision to make.
> >> A lot of it is my code, unchanged (you can check the x86-64.org 
> >> repository, for the huge change that replaced his code with mine)
> >> He never gave me any credit when he contributed it, for some reason, 
> >> probably because I never asked for it.
> >> I've still got the email I sent him when he asked for the code, and i'm 
> >> sure he'd be happy to confirm he used it.
> >> 
> >> >From a legal standpoint, while the copyright is transfered to the FSF, the 
> >> non-exclusive license they grant back to the contributors code should go 
> >> to me as well as Jiri, not just to Jiri.  This is part of of the contract of the 
> >> copyright assignment with the FSF.
> >> Thus, in order to ensure this is possible (not that i plan on using the 
> >> license for anything at the moment), i'm making sure it's clear that the 
> >> code contributed was not soley Jiri's.  
> >> So, that way, in the future, if I ever cared to license the code to 
> >> someone else, or do something with it, I can without someone asserting 
> >> it's only the FSF and Jiri's.
> > 
> > 
> > Please be aware, by the way, that if you don't accept the change to the 
> > top of the file, i'll be forced to go bug RMS/the FSF about it, as I'm 
> > sure they'd want the code correctly identified as well.
> > 
> > I'm not asking that I be given credit for something I didn't do.  Nor am I 
> > attempting to diminish in any way the size,quantity, or quality, of 
> > Jiri's contribution.  I am simply requesting that it be properly 
> > identified as a derivation of code I wrote.
> > 
> > It's imperative that the lineage of code be correctly identified (in fact, 
> > if GDB had a legal team, it's the first thing they'd do). In most cases, 
> > you can determine it from the cvs annotate/the changelogs. However, for 
> > new contributions, there is no history.  Since I never sent the code 
> > in question to gdb-patches, it also has no record there.
> > 
> > I only care because I've been getting an increasing number of requests 
> > from companies wanting to buy the source code to the C++ debugger I wrote 
> > to replace GDB ( Of course, it uses a variant of the code in question to 
> > read/execute frame ops).  I blanket refuse such requests in the hopes that 
> > they'll take the money and pay for GDB work instead, but it's something 
> > i'd consider if times ever  got really tough.  If there is one thing 
> > having three rabbits (rabbits  can't learn through negative reinforcement. 
> > i.e. reprimanding them after they have done something wrong does no good) 
> > as pets has taught me, it's that it's much easier to make sure a situation 
> > never happens, than it is to try to do something about it when it 
> > occurs.
> > 
> > It's not just me, either.  If Jiri/SuSE wanted to license the code to 
> > someone, he/they  might accidently sign something saying he was the sole 
> > author, which could make him/them liable, etc.
> > 
> > In short, i'm simply trying to eliminate something that could come back to 
> > bite me, or others, in the ass, later.
> > 
> > If you really want proof it's my code, I can happily provide this as well.
> > 
> > Since I know you get bogged down in mail, i'll give you till the end of 
> > the month before I go bug RMS and the FSF about this.
> > 
> > --Dan
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>