Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:42:14 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Andre Oppermann <andre@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Stephan Uphoff <ups@FreeBSD.org>, Coleman Kane <cokane@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/amd64/amd64 pmap.c src/sys/i386/i386 pmap.c Message-ID: <463049C6.9080100@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20070426054228.GA53614@comp.chem.msu.su> References: <200704211417.l3LEHUKK078832@repoman.freebsd.org> <462A27CD.5090006@freebsd.org> <1177170852.32761.0.camel@localhost> <20070424091858.GA31094@comp.chem.msu.su> <462FA0BC.8020207@freebsd.org> <20070426054228.GA53614@comp.chem.msu.su>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Yar Tikhiy wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 02:41:00PM -0400, Stephan Uphoff wrote: >> Yar Tikhiy wrote: >>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 09:54:12AM -0600, Coleman Kane wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 17:03 +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: >>>> >>>>> Stephan Uphoff wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> ups 2007-04-21 14:17:30 UTC >>>>>> >>>>>> FreeBSD src repository >>>>>> >>>>>> Modified files: >>>>>> sys/amd64/amd64 pmap.c >>>>>> sys/i386/i386 pmap.c >>>>>> Log: >>>>>> Modify TLB invalidation handling. >>>>>> >>>>>> Reviewed by: alc@, peter@ >>>>>> MFC after: 1 week >>>>>> >>>>> Could you be a bit more verbose what changed here and why it >>>>> was done? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I agree. I would really like to know what the modification accomplishes. >>>> >>> Alas, we don't live in an ideal world. If we did, our commit >>> messages would always follow the well-known guideline: >>> >>> 0. Tell the essence of the change. >>> 1. Give the reason for the change. >>> 2. Explain the change unless it's trivial. >>> >>> >> In the ideal world there are no NDAs :-) > > Was the change based on a document under NDA? Then this case raises > an interesting question: to what extent an open source developer > is allowed to explain his code that was based on a document under > NDA? Of course, it should depend on the NDA, but I suspect that a > typical NDA requires a lawyer to interpret it unambiguously (I've > never signed one by myself), and an overcautious lawyer would say > that the open source code itself violates the NDA because anybody > can RTFS. :-) > Wow, that was painful to read. NDAs that specifically allow source code licensing and distribution are quite common. They even get written and reviewed by lawyers! =-) Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?463049C6.9080100>