[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 00/19] Make ACPI builder available to components other than hvmloader
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 08:41:27 -0400
- Cc: Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>, andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>, zhaoshenglong@xxxxxxxxxx, roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:40:14 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On 09/16/2016 02:45 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>>> And then there's the question of whether excluding things from the
>>> build, but having them present in the sources actually helps.
>> The main reason for this whole relicensing debacle is to prevent non-GPL
>> binaries from linking against GPL objects, and this patch allows us to
>> do that. Yes, there will be be two non-LGPL files (dsdt.asl amd
>> mk_dsdt.c, which I will revert back to GPL) in an otherwise LGPL
>> directory but that's an in-convenience and not a license violation.
> Well, if linking is all this is about, then it's fine of course. I'm just
> not a license expert, so we'd need this acked by someone who is
> more familiar with the differences and implications.
I think Ian and Lars (added both here) would be the most experienced in
this matter.
I could move these two files into tools/libacpi/gpl subdirectory to
emphasize their special licensing.
-boris
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
