[U-Boot] [PATCH v3] x86: Import the glibc memset implementation

[Graeme Russ]

Hi Gabe,

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Gabe Black <gabeblack at google.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 3:38 AM, Graeme Russ <graeme.russ at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gabe,
>>
>> Sorry about the lateness, but I just noticed a couple of issues..
>>
>> Can you put the glibc version in the patch summary? I know it is in
>> string.c, but including it in the summary makes it more obvious.
>>
>> On 13/11/11 14:00, Gabe Black wrote:
>> > The new implementation is about twice as fast as the old.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Gabe Black <gabeblack at chromium.org>
>> > ---
>> [snip]
>>
>> > diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/string.c b/arch/x86/lib/string.c
>> > new file mode 100644
>> > index 0000000..1346173
>> > --- /dev/null
>> > +++ b/arch/x86/lib/string.c
>> > @@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
>> > +/*
>> > + * Copyright (C) 1991,1992,1993,1997,1998,2003, 2005 Free Software
>> > Foundation, Inc.
>>
>> Line over 80 characters - I can live with this as it is a verbatim import
>>
>> > + * This file is part of the GNU C Library.
>> > + * Copyright (c) 2011 The Chromium OS Authors. All rights reserved.
>>
>> This, however, causes a problem - There is some conjecture as to whether
>> "All rights reserved" can co-exist with GPL. I believe there is a mandate
>> from Wolfgang to not accept patches with this clause - Do I understand
>> correctly Wolfgang?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Graeme
>
>
> For reference, I ran this command
> grep -R 'All rights reserved' * | wc -l
> in a several months old U-Boot repository and got 238 hits, and ran it in
> the Linux 2.6.39.3 source and got 3420 hits. There seems to be a lot of
> precedence for this language in what I assume is mostly GPL-ed code. That
> said, I'm not a lawyer and I'm personally not very worried about exactly how
> this is worded beyond my obligations to my employer.

A number of those hits are files using the BSD licence. Of course there are
a lot in files using the GPL as well but as has been said before, bad
practices of the past should not be used as an example for the future...

I'm not too concerned by it either - I'm waiting for Wolfgang's response

Regards,

Graeme