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

[Daniel Berlin <dan at dberlin dot org>]

> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 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