On 06/03/2014 09:42 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 3 June 2014 12:38, Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru> wrote: >> On 06/03/2014 07:45 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> On 3 June 2014 04:52, Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru> wrote: >>>> Is there anything I can do to help with this? Chase someone down? :) >>> >>> Confirming that your lawyers are happy with the approach >>> Anthony proposed to take to fixing this would probably >>> be useful :-) >> >> Let me refresh. Anthony suggested this - >> http://marc.info/?l=qemu-devel&m=136725946312880&w=4 >> >> To complete this, we need ack from a lot of people and three of them ( >> Fabrice Bellard, Jocelyn Mayer, Thiemo Seufer) have not ack'ed yet so we >> either have to revert their changes (mwahaha) or we are stuck here. > > Essentially, yes. In particular it's not clear to me > exactly how "clean room" our reimplementation of the > bits of code we need to revert and rewrite has to be. > > Also is it sufficient to say "I started with the -2a > codebase and applied a lot of patches to it, and ended > up with a git commit which looks like "just change the > comment style", or does our git history really need to > look like "remove the -2b code, apply the -2a code, > reapply intervening changes"? The former has the > benefit of not breaking bisection, but if you look > at the commit it looks a bit odd that we can remove > the -2b licensing taint without actually touching most > of the lines of code in the files...
Our lawyers refused to provide any public advise on this :-/ Is that it, end of story? :) -- Alexey
