From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2015 19:36:04 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 5/6] package/gnu-efi: fix legal-info In-Reply-To: <20150405173134.GE4134@free.fr> References: <41ea946a815b2214044827c73815d8a171a3a939.1428252467.git.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> <20150405191745.3497f9a7@free-electrons.com> <20150405173134.GE4134@free.fr> Message-ID: <20150405193604.57628c92@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Yann E. MORIN, On Sun, 5 Apr 2015 19:31:34 +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > The reasoning for changing that is: > - there are two files with a GPLv2+ header; > - gnuefi/crt0-efi-aarch64.S -> GPLv2+ or something like a BSD-2c > - gnuefi/crt0-efi-arm.S -> GPLv2+ > - all other files are BSD-3c (or have no licensing info) > - we don't build gnuefi for ARM or AArch64, only for x86 or x86_64 > > However, re-reading README.gnuefi, we can read this: > > ---8<--- > gnuefi: This directory contains the glue necessary to convert ELF64 > binaries to EFI binaries. Various runtime code bits, such as > a self-relocator are included as well. This code has been > contributed by the Hewlett-Packard Company and is distributed > under the GNU GPL. > ---8<--- > > This is very confusing.Waht about changing to: > > GNU_EFI_LICENSE = BSD-3c and/or GPLv2+ (gnuefi), BSD-3c (efilib) I would find this to be a safer value. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com