On 11/3/23 15:16, Michael Kubacki wrote: > On 11/3/2023 9:06 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> On 11/2/23 21:03, Michael Kubacki wrote: >>> From: Michael Kubacki <michael.kuba...@microsoft.com> >>> >>> The code in this directory is licensed under Apache License, Version >>> 2.0. Therefore, the directory is listed under paths with licenses >>> other than BSD-2-Clause Plus Patent. The directory link points to the >>> complete Apache License, Version 2.0 on apache.org. >>> >>> Cc: Andrew Fish <af...@apple.com> >>> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> >>> Cc: Leif Lindholm <quic_llind...@quicinc.com> >>> Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kin...@intel.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Michael Kubacki <michael.kuba...@microsoft.com> >>> --- >>> ReadMe.rst | 1 + >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/ReadMe.rst b/ReadMe.rst >>> index 06fb122ef382..808ccd37af50 100644 >>> --- a/ReadMe.rst >>> +++ b/ReadMe.rst >>> @@ -73,6 +73,7 @@ The majority of the content in the EDK II open >>> source project uses a >>> source project contains the following components that are covered >>> by additional >>> licenses: >>> +- `BaseTools/Plugin/CodeQL/analyze >>> <https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0>`__ >>> - `BaseTools/Source/C/LzmaCompress >>> <BaseTools/Source/C/LzmaCompress/LZMA-SDK-README.txt>`__ >>> - `BaseTools/Source/C/VfrCompile/Pccts >>> <BaseTools/Source/C/VfrCompile/Pccts/RIGHTS>`__ >>> - `CryptoPkg\Library\BaseCryptLib\SysCall\inet_pton.c >>> <CryptoPkg\Library\BaseCryptLib\SysCall\inet_pton.c>`__ >> >> I've carefully read through the cover letter now (impressive work!). I >> have some questions, with reference to Leif's comment at >> <https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/110475> as well: >> >> - Is the BaseTools/Plugin/CodeQL/analyze subdirectory not supposed to >> contain a standalone "COPYING" or similar file? >> >> If not, then the current patch seems fine: >> >> Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> >> > I wasn't aware of anything further needed for the Apache License 2.0. > I'm familiar with COPYING in the context of GNU licensing > (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html). I don't see it applying > directly to the Apache licensing process as I understand it.
Apologies, I was unclear. My point was only that, if the copyright notices were included inside the local subdir, then we should point this reference too to that local file. And, I thought that any project would include such a separate file (which we'd now inherit). Given that that is not the case, just apply my R-b. :) > >> - I'd like to understand where the BaseTools/Plugin/CodeQL/analyze/ >> contents (three files) originate from. If it was authored by Microsoft, >> then I don't understand (per v4 series changelog in the cover letter) >> why the Microsoft copyright notice had to be removed. And if it is not >> original work by Microsoft, but work derived by Microsoft from other >> original work, then it should contain both the original copyright >> notices, and Microsofts. >> > Because these are only a couple files, I tried to follow the guidance in > "To apply the Apache License to specific files in your work..." in "How > To Apply the Apache License to Your Work" in > https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0. > > For those files I: > > 1. Made the upper text clearly state Apache License Version 2.0 with a > link to apache.org/licenses. > > 2. Included the boilerplate text as given in the above link for > "licensing specific files in your work". > > 3. Preserved any existing copyrights. > > - globber.py had a pre-existing copyright preserved Ah, indeed! Sorry, I totally missed that. Mea culpa! > - analyze_filter.py did not have one in the source Python file or > its LICENSE file OK! Finally, I'm just noticing that "BaseTools/Plugin/CodeQL/analyze/__init__.py" is actually an empty file. This looks like a python trick: https://old.reddit.com/r/learnpython/comments/fuxv57/can_init_py_actually_be_empty/ https://stackoverflow.com/questions/448271/what-is-init-py-for So I now understand this empty __init__.py is not derived from <https://github.com/advanced-security/filter-sarif> -- it is a genuine addition under edk2, right? But, because it is zero size (intentionally), adding a Microsoft copyright notice to it was deemed overkill. Is that correct? We have a bunch of other, similarly empty __init__.py files: BaseTools/Plugin/DebugMacroCheck/tests/__init__.py BaseTools/Source/C/BrotliCompress/brotli/python/tests/__init__.py BaseTools/Source/Python/Ecc/CParser3/__init__.py BaseTools/Source/Python/Ecc/CParser4/__init__.py BaseTools/Source/Python/Eot/CParser3/__init__.py BaseTools/Source/Python/Eot/CParser4/__init__.py MdeModulePkg/Library/BrotliCustomDecompressLib/brotli/python/tests/__init__.py > > 4. Appended text stating the source of the files and a brief summary of > the changes in this copy relative to the original. > >> The file-top comments in those three files reference >> >> https://github.com/advanced-security/filter-sarif >> >> as the origin. Do the original files in that repository contain >> copyright notices? (Or does their containing project come with a COPYING >> or similar file?) I'm not looking for a license specification (SPDX or >> natural language), but specifically for copyright notices on the >> original work. >> > All copyright notices from original files are preserved. Indeed -- I'm sorry for missing that previously. > > https://github.com/advanced-security itself actually includes a local > copy of globber.py > https://github.com/advanced-security/filter-sarif/blob/main/globber.py. > > I dropped the Microsoft copyright in those specific files because my > contributions the those files were not significant. If there are other > factors to consider, please let me know and I will reconsider. I think the only other factor here may be that you are creating the file in the edk2 tree. Whenever I create a new file in edk2 (for example by copying an existent library instance, and customizing the code in the new instance, however minimally), I add a Red Hat copyright notice. But I don't insist at all, I was just curious of the reasoning! >> Does the <https://github.com/advanced-security> organization perhaps use >> an over-arching copyright notice somewhere? >> > I couldn't find anything. Thanks a lot for checking! I don't object to any of the v4 patches getting merged as posted. Cheers, Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#110630): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/110630 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/102350800/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/leave/9847357/21656/1706620634/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
