Re: [Qemu-devel] [edk2] EDK II & GPL - Re: OVMF BoF @ KVM Forum 2015

[Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>]

On 10.09.15 12:04, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 09/10/15 08:19, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Am 10.09.2015 um 07:32 schrieb Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>:
> 
>>> Laszlo's email raised the GPL question, but I was not sure what the
>>> EDK II community would accept with regards to GPL. Thus ... I asked. I
>>> guess I'm getting a better idea with regards to Apple and HP. :)
>>>
>>> In your opinion, would we be able to discuss patches for a *separate*
>>> repo with GplDriverPkg on edk2-devel?
>>
>> In fact, could we just make the non-free FAT source and GPL FAT
>> source both be git submodules?
> 
> We've discussed submodules in the past (for other purposes). The
> consensus seemed to be that most people dislike them (me included).
> 
> UEFI drivers are supposed to be modular / well separable (for one, they
> can be shipped by third parties in binary-only form; which was a design
> goal of UEFI). And specifically in the FAT driver's case, the source
> doesn't even live inside the main repo at the moment, so turning it into
> a source submodule might not be a step back.
> 
> But... I just don't like it. We should be moving towards a grand unified
> repo, where cross-module changes and dependencies are possible to
> implement with carefully segmented patch sets. The FAT driver's source
> lives outside for non-technical reasons. Rather than codifying that
> situation forever with a git submodule, I'd prefer some solution that
> leaves us with a standalone repo.
> 
> I think I'm fuzzy on the details of the earlier git-submodule
> discussion. In any case here's the link (I hope this is the right one):
> 
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.bios.tianocore.devel/15168
> 
>> Then whoever clones the repo can get
>> the license flavor he's least scared about.
> 
> I think for many companies it is important that a developer of theirs
> who is "blissfully ignorant" of licensing questions simply *cannot* make
> a mistake (eg. by copying code from the "wrong" directory, or by using
> the "wrong" submodule). It should be foolproof.
> 
>> Or alternatively instead
>> of pulling in a GPL licensed FAT driver we use a BSD licensed one.
>> I'm sure someone has one of those too ;).
> 
> I'm not sure at all. Do you have a pointer? :)

Well, the BSDs definitely have drivers, but I find the BSD VFS layer
quite confusing to be honest ;).

Then there is http://elm-chan.org/fsw/ff/00index_e.html which from my
gut feeling has a compatible license (read: needs verification).

I'm sure with some extensive search one can find a workable driver. Or
for example Apple could just contribute theirs as BSD licensed.


Alex