Re: malloc: performance improvements and bugfixes

[Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>]

On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 19:21 -0800, JÃrn Engel wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 06:44:37PM -0800, JÃrn Engel wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 07:22:32AM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > > On 26 January 2016 at 06:30, JÃrn Engel <joern@purestorage.com> wrote:
> > > > Agreed.  I thought I mentioned that this is a braindump and not a
> > > > patchset for submission. ;)
> > > 
> > > Thank you for doing this. There is however the issue of copyright
> > > assignment.  I don't have access to the copyright list, so could you
> > > (or Carlos, Joseph, etc.) please tell me if you have signed it?
> > 
> > I have not and will not.  Or at least someone with a silver tongue would
> > have to spend significant time explaining the advantages of copyright
> > assignment to me.
> 
> Maybe I should elaborate a little.
> 
> I am quite thankful to the FSF for the GPL.  Creating that license was a
> wonderful move for those people that aren't happy with BSD-style
> licenses.
> 
> That said, I find language like "version 2 or later" trollbait at best.
> The paranoid in me and many other developers starts wondering under what
> circumstances the FSF might turn evil, by any definition of evil, and
> create a license to further their own schemes.
> 
> Some might argue that GPLv3 already is evil.  I personally don't mind
> either version 2 or 3, but I hate the rift this has created where some
> code is "2 only please" and other code is "3 or later".
> 
> Copyright assignment is far far worse.  I am signing away ownership of
> the code.  But of which code?  Everything I ever write in the future?

I certainly won't give you any legal advice, but I think this all is
less complex than you seem to think it is.  For example, if you'd sign a
copyright assignment for contributions, you still need to actively
contribute code in the first case, which would clarify your "which
code?" question.

> To answer this question I have to read a lot of legalese, any developers
> favorite.  Then I have to pay a lawyer to explain the finer points to
> me, because I may have missed them.  Next I have to pay a second lawyer
> to judge whether the first lawyer even knew what he was talking about,
> which sadly isn't always the case.
> 
> At this point I am pretty much exhausted and write some kernel code
> instead.  Linus will fuzz about the technical merits that I enjoy
> deliberating, not about copyright assignment.  Or I get a job where the
> same legal problems await me, but I at least get compensated for them.
> 
> And just in case it wasn't clear, all the above is my personal opinion
> and not that of my employer.  Maybe my employer sees enough merit in
> getting code upstream to handle the legal work.  I do not and will not
> pursue this any further.

So, what does your employer think about it?