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

[Kevin Davis <Kevin.Davis@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> 
> > 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?
...
> >>
> >>> 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=6S8FigY
> 338Lo73J1DVLkCR-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.
> >
As Fish said with a bit of a modernization:
I'm not an attorney nor do I play one on YouTube, and adding that I'm not 
speaking for my employer although I actually do that on YouTube...

If you follow the above link to http://elm-chan.org/fsw/ff/00index_e.html , 
that software source code is licensed to the user of the software source code 
under a very permissive 1 clause BSD license.  Ok, that solves one issue.  

If you read down in the web page, it points to the Microsoft EFI FAT32 File 
System Specification page where the next issue is addressed.  By the way, this 
probably is something close to the specification that was used by the original 
developers to create the EDK2 driver.

"Note: The download license agreement permits you to use the Microsoft EFI 
FAT32 File System Specification only in connection with a firmware 
implementation of the Extensible Firmware Initiative Specification, v. 1.0. If 
you plan to implement the FAT32 File System specification for other purposes, 
you must obtain an additional license from Microsoft." - copied from 
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/hardware/gg463080.aspx

Snipping the statement of interest to "If you plan to implement... for other 
purposes... you must obtain an additional license from Microsoft."

Just being an individual person and not an attorney, this leads me to guess 
that Microsoft wants one to have a license if one plans on implementing the 
spec.  Not use, not implement, but the act of planning to implement.  I would 
also guess when one goes to Microsoft to obtain this license, one would then 
learn about the license to actually use ones code after you planned and 
implemented.

So, continuing to guess here, I would guess that ANY of the FAT file systems 
that you find with clean BSD source code license or standard GPL, were not 
developed under a valid Microsoft FAT implementation license.  Further leading 
me to guess that any actual use of those implementations could lead to you 
actually needing to hire a real attorney and not one that you find on YouTube. 

> 
> They are talking about an EFI FAT driver with a BSD compatible license, not a
> BSD driver.
> The edk2 EFI FAT driver has a license that matches the FAT32 spec it was
> coded against, but that license restricts the usage of the code to EFI. This 
> is
> not deemed a GPL compatible license, so that causes issues with down
> stream GPL projects of the edk2 as there is a binary for the EFI FAT driver
> checked into the main branch of the edk2. The source to the edk2 EFI FAT
> driver is separate from the edk2 based on its funky license.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andrew Fish
> 
> >
> > Alex
> 
Please forgive me if I have violated any of the rules for responding to emails 
on the cc:'ed list.  I'm just a manager at work so I'm not very experienced at 
following rules.  Feel free to flame me directly.  

As an aside to another branch of this thread, is the only way to prove 
friendliness to the Linux community by having a complete un-permissive GPL'ed 
BIOS source code?  After years of working in the industry and trying to effect 
change in the companies for which I work and in the customers that I service, I 
would have thought what I'm doing is being friendly.    Again, feel free to 
flame me directly instead of filling up this branch of the thread.

Thanks!
Kevin
An actual individual not speaking for my employer

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