[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [edk2] EDK II & GPL - Re: OVMF BoF @ KVM Forum 2015
> Am 10.09.2015 um 14:17 schrieb Andrew Fish <afish@xxxxxxxxx>: > > >> On Sep 10, 2015, at 4:40 AM, Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >>> 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@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>>>> 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): >>> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thread.gmane.org_gmane.comp.bios.tianocore.devel_15168&d=BQID-g&c=eEvniauFctOgLOKGJOplqw&r=1HnUuXD1wDvw67rut5_idw&m=6S8FigY338Lo73J1DVLkCR-sshwa_iC7dw0Ng-S8U4o&s=VQx-tNIhMX_CI4DXORkNq10jBTMAXyaFT332GWZhfRQ&e= >>> >>> >>>> 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 >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__elm-2Dchan.org_fsw_ff_00index-5Fe.html&d=BQID-g&c=eEvniauFctOgLOKGJOplqw&r=1HnUuXD1wDvw67rut5_idw&m=6S8FigY338Lo73J1DVLkCR-sshwa_iC7dw0Ng-S8U4o&s=l2F5kQrmSHyEb7D4po7B0A-vQK1l7rCkw79eJCddVmQ&e= >> 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. > > They are talking about an EFI FAT driver with a BSD compatible license, not a > BSD driver. We're talking about replacing the non-free FAT driver with a free one for OVMF. The easiest path to get there isvto reuse an existing driver - the original proposal was to take the one from grub and fit it into uEFI's interfaces. An alternative to the GPL grub driver would be a BSD licensed driver from somewhere else or a rewrite. Rewrite sounds harder. If we can throw out the non-free FAT driver and put in a BSD licensed FAT driver based on known working code into edk2, I suppose it's a win for everyone involved and we wouldn't even need a fork for OVMF imho but keep it as reference implementation in the tree, like Duet. Alex _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |