From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55159) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZnt9-0000mR-76 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 18:30:48 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZnt4-0006wd-Tp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 18:30:46 -0400 Received: from mail-out4.apple.com ([17.151.62.26]:58735 helo=mail-in4.apple.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZnt4-0006se-KK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 18:30:42 -0400 Received: from [17.153.40.73] (unknown [17.153.40.73]) by marigold.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.30.0 64bit (built Oct 22 2013)) with ESMTPSA id <0NUF00KBJL70EN10@marigold.apple.com> for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 15:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Sender: afish@apple.com Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: Andrew Fish In-reply-to: <20150909175753.1013.69101@jljusten-ivb> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 15:30:36 -0700 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Message-id: <3170EF35-20FD-4A2F-9405-6FF2F844BBDB@apple.com> References: <55C8D046.7040203@redhat.com> <55EFF48F.7090005@redhat.com> <20150909161735.30348.87652@jljusten-ivb> <20150909175753.1013.69101@jljusten-ivb> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [edk2] EDK II & GPL - Re: OVMF BoF @ KVM Forum 2015 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jordan Justen Cc: Lenny Szubowicz , Karen Noel , Ard Biesheuvel , edk2-devel-01 , Cole Robinson , "Ademar de Souza Reis Jr." , Alexander Graf , qemu devel list , "Gabriel L. Somlo (GMail)" , Peter Jones , Peter Batard , Hannes Reinecke , Reza Jelveh , Paolo Bonzini , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Laszlo Ersek , Gerd Hoffmann > On Sep 9, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Jordan Justen = wrote: >=20 > On 2015-09-09 10:04:50, Andrew Fish wrote: >>=20 >>> On Sep 9, 2015, at 9:17 AM, Jordan Justen = wrote: >>>=20 >>> So, related to this, I wonder how the community would feel about a >>> GplDriverPkg. Would the community allow it as a new package in EDK = II >>> directly, or would a separate repo be required? >>>=20 >>=20 >> I think we would need a separate repo, like the FAT driver. That is >> the only way to deal with the license issues. >=20 > There doesn't seem to be any guiding rules here. For example, I think > some people are not comfortable with the FatBinPkg being in the tree > due to the license. I don=E2=80=99t think it is fair to look backwards to make this = comparison=20 A long time ago your co-workers decided to check some binaries in to = make folks life easier.=20 1) Tools compiled by VC++ that only run on Windows 2) Shell binary 3) FAT binary I think the goal was one svn pull and no extra tools needed to install, = build, and run NT32 on Windows.=20 The source code was BSD so other than the FAT driver it is all = compatible with a GPL project that wanted to import the code. That was = good enough when this decision was made.=20 I personally have no issue removing the binaries from the tree, = especially the FAT driver if it causes issues for folks. I think that = would imply the website, and any getting started collateral would need = to get updated.=20 > Why is that okay? >=20 It was OK, at the time.=20 The intellectual property around FAT is a mess, but at least it is = permissible to use it in (U)EFI to boot a system.=20 >>> With regards to adding it directly into the EDK II tree, here are = some >>> potential concerns that I might anticipate hearing from the = community: >>>=20 >>> * It will make it easier for contributors to choose GPL compared to = a >>> permissive license, thereby limiting some users of the contribution >>>=20 >>> * GPL code will more easily be copied into the permissively licensed >>> packages >>>=20 >>> * Some might refuse to look at EDK II entirely if it has a directory >>> with GPL source code in it >>>=20 >>=20 >> Or have their rights to contribute revoked since this is a >> fundamental change, and would require employees to get reauthorized >> by their legal departments to contribute. >=20 > We've recently expanded beyond just allowing BSD code into the tree, > and that appeared to be no big deal. No one brought this up as a > fundamental change. >=20 > Just to be clear, are you saying Apple probably won't be able to > contribute to EDK II if there is any GPL licensed code in the tree? > (Even if it is contained in a clearly indicated package.) I guess > using dual-licensed BSD/GPL is okay though? > (EmbeddedPkg/Library/FdtLib) >=20 BSD compatible is OK.=20 Thanks, Andrew Fish > -Jordan > _______________________________________________ > edk2-devel mailing list > edk2-devel@lists.01.org > = https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dhttps-3A__lists.01.org_mailma= n_listinfo_edk2-2Ddevel&d=3DBQICAg&c=3DeEvniauFctOgLOKGJOplqw&r=3D1HnUuXD1= wDvw67rut5_idw&m=3DKmc0BLQJkt9XKCJf_d8PrrQXQ9eNhkkTmN6cq2RzIzo&s=3DgmyUS4K= 6xDQ0QIZyAv_DkOp_G9rMBrDpvqa_VV_4RTo&e=3D=20