Hi John,
This is a mail describing the Elliott copyright problem.
In an other mail in this thread you said you will take care.
Probably just ignoring this is the best solution for this topic.
We should not take any PRs from this person, but someone like me could
accidentally apply a PR from him if it is otherwise fine.
Hauke
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Fwd: Pull #14907
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 23:01:39 +0300
From: Stijn Tintel <[email protected]>
To: John Crispin <[email protected]>, Hauke Mehrtens <[email protected]>,
Jo-Philipp Wich <[email protected]>, Felix Fietkau <[email protected]>, Rafał
Miłecki <[email protected]>
Hi,
By "GPL" in 1, do you mean "GPL-3.0"? If yes, does that mean we can
include GPL-3.0 licensed code in openwrt.git without issue? I brought
this up previously in #openwrt-adm and the only direct response was from
rmilecki, suggesting we should contact lawyers. I agree with this, and
in addition think we should have a vote.
Stijn
On 3/06/2024 13:26, John Crispin wrote:
Hi,
I spoke with Jow, we would propose the following approach
1) contact Oliver and ask if it is ok to use GPL and add Eliot as an
author, commit that change
2) in the following commit delete the script and tell them to
re-submit it in the maintainer repo
John
On 03.06.24 09:17, Stijn Tintel wrote:
Hi guys,
Can we check with SFC if there's any chance if this guy files a DMCA
claim it would actually result in a takedown? And if yes, is removing
the script (scripts/kernel_bump.sh) enough to avoid that?
Thanks,
Stijn
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Pull #14907
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 22:14:46 -0700
From: Elliott Mitchell <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
I've been willing to re-license the content of pull #14907 from the
start. Issue is, in order to change the license I need to see some
benefit. You may be able to demand most developers change their license,
but that is due to their goal being strictly to get their name out.
Trick is the situation with #14907 is rather different. With
7b7f1702163, Olliver Schinagl has admitted a portion was copied from my
work. The portion may be small, but it is distinct enough to be
recognizable. Since the script is still GPL3+ the license on the script
in OpenWRT is wrong and this complicates matters.
Since Git keeps full history, it is impossible to make that disappear
without rebasing and I'm pretty sure you don't want to do that. Yet
unless that is done I can issue a DMCA claim and take down the OpenWRT
repository.
As a result changing the license is valuable enough to the OpenWRT
project so as to need negotiation.
I'm not planning to ask for much, but right now you're offering me
absolutely nothing and simply demanding something. That is not how
negotiations work so this are stalled and I'm having to consider
options.
I don't know any of the parameters you or Hauke Mehrtens have when doing
bisecting with Git.
For your prespective, I tend to average using `git blame` about once
per day. I can go for several weeks without using it, but then one day
I'll use it several times. I've stated before I can run `git blame` on
a 2000-line file in FreeBSD's repository (which has 5x the number of
commits that OpenWRT has) in 10 seconds. Using --find-copies-harder on
OpenWRT's repository turns this into a 10 minute operation.
Being more than an order of magnitude slower (not quite 2) really does
amount to breaking it.
I've got no idea of how often `git bisect` is used. I've got no ideas
how many steps are involved in the typical session. I've got no idea
how long your usual test cycle takes. I suspect you're usually using at
least 5 steps, in which case encountering an unbuildable commit would
at worst involve a 5-20% slowdown. That isn't in the same league.
The script in #14907 already features a very potent countermeasure to
alleviate the issue of unbuildable commits on bisecting. The measure is
the script is designed for being run *once* for each kernel update.
Rather than creating ~50 unbuildable commits/year to individually create
new configurations for each target, it is instead meant to do all
devices
at once.
I hope the reduction in unbuildable commits is sufficient, but
creating a
script to do automated skipping of the unbuilable commits is possible.I
though would first need confidence time spent on such a script would not
be wasted. Right now I have none.
I am also concerned all of the concerns besides the license apply
just as
well to #14713. Yet #14713 got in with those issues. It is
inappropriate to only demand things without also demanding them of
someone else doing similar things.
That is the situation. I'm quite willing to allow GPLv2, but that needs
negotiation and you're not negotiating.
--
(\___(\___(\______ --=> 8-) EHM <=-- ______/)___/)___/)
\BS ( |[email protected] PGP 87145445 | ) /
\_CS\ | _____ -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O- _____ | / _/
8A19\___\_|_/58D2 7E3D DDF4 7BA6 <-PGP-> 41D1 B375 37D0
8714\_|_/___/5445
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
