Re: KVM call agenda for 2013-05-28

From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	KVM devel mailing list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	seabios@seabios.org,
	qemu-devel qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Subject: Re: KVM call agenda for 2013-05-28
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 18:45:51 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51A8D3BF.5000809@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87mwrbqhn1.fsf@codemonkey.ws>

On 05/31/13 17:43, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> writes:
> 
>> On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 08:04 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>
>>> <soapbox>
>>>
>>> Fork OVMF, drop the fat module, and just add GPL code.  It's an easily
>>> solvable problem.
>>
>> Heh. Actually it doesn't need to be a fork. It's modular, and the FAT
>> driver is just a single module. Which is actually included in *binary*
>> form in the EDK2 repository, I believe, and its source code is
>> elsewhere.
>>
>> We could happily make a GPL¹ or LGPL implementation of a FAT module and
>> build our OVMF with that instead, and we wouldn't need to fork OVMF at
>> all.
> 
> So can't we have GPL virtio modules too?  I don't think there's any
> problem there except for the FAT module.

I share your assessment.

> I would propose more of a virtual fork.  It could consist of a git repo with
> the GPL modules + a submodule for edk2.  Ideally, there would be no need
> to actually fork edk2.

Indeed. edk2 is extremely modular. But in order to get a useful firmware
image ultimately, you need a FAT driver.

> My assumption is that edk2 won't take GPL code.

Correct, see eg. OvmfPkg/Contributions.txt.

Laszlo

_______________________________________________
SeaBIOS mailing list
SeaBIOS@seabios.org
http://www.seabios.org/mailman/listinfo/seabios