From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Kiszka Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/3] Add BIOS splash image support Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:30:36 +0100 Message-ID: <4949454C.5000501@siemens.com> References: <1229440810-12394-1-git-send-email-Laurent.Vivier@bull.net> <20081217135512.GJ13794@redhat.com> <49491281.9040505@siemens.com> <200812171517.52718.paul@codesourcery.com> <49492A6D.6@siemens.com> <49493372.3020205@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Paul Brook , Blue Swirl , bochs developers , Gleb Natapov , kvm developers To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from david.siemens.de ([192.35.17.14]:21387 "EHLO david.siemens.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750894AbYLQSbd (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:31:33 -0500 In-Reply-To: <49493372.3020205@codemonkey.ws> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Anthony Liguori wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Paul Brook wrote: >> >>>> BTW, why does qemu not carry all bochs bios source? For reference, but >>>> also to fully comply with the LGPL (pointing to the original source is >>>> not sufficient when delivering binaries - like e.g. bios.bin...). >>>> >>> If this is really an issue, then I strongly suggest we fix it by >>> moving the bios into its own project, and have everyone fetch it from >>> there. >>> >> >> Qemu distributes binaries that have been generated from LGPLed sources >> (this is at least the case for bochs, one would have to check the >> situation for the other firmware images), so it has to provide the >> corresponding source code according to the license terms. > > You are not qualified to make the statement "has to". This is a legal > issue and depends on how the GPL is interpreted. The FSF provides a set > of guidelines and so does Debian. Debian's guidelines are more > extreme. If you look at the FSF FAQ on this subject, the main issue is > ensuring that the source code is always available. > > Since Bochs is on SF, as long as we ensure that the version we base on > is always available, you could certainly conclude that's enough. Well, I guess we are both not qualified to finally judge over this. But this is not my point. > > But please, this is not an issue worth even discussing here. It is only > relevant for people distributing QEMU and it's up to those people to > consult with their legal teams to determine whether they need to do > anything special. And why complicating things downstream when it can be fixed upstream? Because it is only a legal issue? As a redistributor of OSS who cares a lot about such issues, you have a lot of "fun" getting things right when upstream forgot it. But as it looks like, there is a consensus on changing the situation anyway. And up to now, no animal should have been harmed, too. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 26 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux