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

[Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, FatPkg is only superficially permissive and not even open source, so 
there is a precedent. (A precedent that, I might add, happens to violate 
SourceForge's the off service).

When we import edk2 into Fedora we just remove FatBinPkg. We would think twice 
before contributing to it, but do not make any kind of fuss about it.

GPL is just the same. For example, it would be possible to have an 
automatically-updated git repo that omits the GPL directory; and development 
would then be easier for people whose legal departments tend not to influence 
the engineers' productivity.

In fact:

1) it is not like, among non-Intel contributors, proprietary software companies 
have the lion's share of edk2 commits, and they probably use Tiano releases. 
Intel could strip any GPL pieces as part of the Tiano release process.

2) the GPL is working just fine for Linux, which is not that different from 
UEFI. So, picture me skeptical. If anything, what Linux can teach edk2 is that 
a closed prices and balkanized trees are a direct cause of the abysmal security 
of those implementations.

Paolo

-----Original Message-----
From: El-Haj-Mahmoud, Samer [samer.el-haj-mahmoud@xxxxxxx]
Received: mercoledÃ, 09 set 2015, 21:12
To: Jordan Justen [jordan.l.justen@xxxxxxxxx]; Andrew Fish [afish@xxxxxxxxx]
CC: Lenny Szubowicz [lennysz@xxxxxxxxxx]; Karen Noel [knoel@xxxxxxxxxx]; Ard 
Biesheuvel [ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx]; edk2-devel-01 [edk2-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx]; 
Reza Jelveh [reza.jelveh@xxxxxxx]; Alexander Graf [agraf@xxxxxxx]; qemu devel 
list [qemu-devel@xxxxxxxxxx]; Hannes Reinecke [hare@xxxxxxx]; Gabriel L. Somlo 
(GMail) [gsomlo@xxxxxxxxx]; Peter Jones [pjones@xxxxxxxxxx]; Peter Batard 
[pete@xxxxxxx]; Gerd Hoffmann [kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx]; Cole Robinson 
[crobinso@xxxxxxxxxx]; Paolo Bonzini [pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx]; 
xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]; Laszlo Ersek 
[lersek@xxxxxxxxxx]; Ademar de Souza Reis Jr. [areis@xxxxxxxxxx]
Subject: RE: [edk2] EDK II & GPL - Re:  OVMF BoF @ KVM Forum 2015

The recent expansions beyond BSD where all permissive licenses (BSD like) as 
far as I can tell.

I agree with Andrew, opening the door for GPL licensed code in EDK2 will have 
severe consequences for products that are built using EDK2. 



-----Original Message-----
From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jordan 
Justen
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:58 PM
To: Andrew Fish <afish@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Lenny Szubowicz <lennysz@xxxxxxxxxx>; Karen Noel <knoel@xxxxxxxxxx>; Ard 
Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx>; edk2-devel-01 
<edk2-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Reza Jelveh <reza.jelveh@xxxxxxx>; Alexander Graf 
<agraf@xxxxxxx>; qemu devel list <qemu-devel@xxxxxxxxxx>; Hannes Reinecke 
<hare@xxxxxxx>; Gabriel L. Somlo (GMail) <gsomlo@xxxxxxxxx>; Peter Jones 
<pjones@xxxxxxxxxx>; Peter Batard <pete@xxxxxxx>; Gerd Hoffmann 
<kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx>; Cole Robinson <crobinso@xxxxxxxxxx>; Paolo Bonzini 
<pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Laszlo Ersek 
<lersek@xxxxxxxxxx>; Ademar de Souza Reis Jr. <areis@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [edk2] EDK II & GPL - Re: OVMF BoF @ KVM Forum 2015

On 2015-09-09 10:04:50, Andrew Fish wrote:
> 
> > On Sep 9, 2015, at 9:17 AM, Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > 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?
> > 
> 
> I think we would need a separate repo, like the FAT driver. That is 
> the only way to deal with the license issues.

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. Why is that okay?

> > With regards to adding it directly into the EDK II tree, here are 
> > some potential concerns that I might anticipate hearing from the community:
> > 
> > * It will make it easier for contributors to choose GPL compared to 
> > a  permissive license, thereby limiting some users of the 
> > contribution
> > 
> > * GPL code will more easily be copied into the permissively licensed  
> > packages
> > 
> > * Some might refuse to look at EDK II entirely if it has a directory  
> > with GPL source code in it
> > 
> 
> 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.

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.

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)

-Jordan
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel


Inviato dal telefono Android mediante TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel