[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for 2013-05-28

From: Anthony Liguori
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for 2013-05-28
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 12:10:53 -0500
User-agent: Notmuch/0.15.2+77~g661dcf8 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)

Laszlo Ersek <address@hidden> writes:

> On 05/31/13 16:38, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> It's either Open Source or it's not.  It's currently not.
> I disagree with this binary representation of Open Source or Not. If it
> weren't (mostly) Open Source, how could we fork (most of) it as you're
> suggesting (from the soapbox :))?
>> I have a hard
>> time sympathesizing with trying to work with a proprietary upstream.
> My experience has been positive.
> First of all, whether UEFI is a good thing or not is controversial. I
> won't try to address that.
> However UEFI is here to stay, machines are being shipped with it, Linux
> and other OSen try to support it. Developing (or running) an OS in
> combination with a specific firmware is sometimes easier / more economic
> in a virtual environment, hence there should be support for qemu + UEFI.
> It is this mindset that I operate in. (Oh, I also forgot to mention that
> this task has been assigned to me by my superiors as well :))
> Jordan, the OvmfPkg maintainer is responsive and progressive in the true
> FLOSS manner (*), which was a nice surprise for a project whose coding
> standards for example are made 100% after Windows source code, and whose
> mailing list is mostly subscribed to by proprietary vendors. Really when
> it comes to OvmfPkg patches the process follows the "normal" FLOSS
> development model.
> (*) Jordan, I hope this will prompt you to merge VirtioNetDxe v4 real
> soon now :)

(Removing seabios from the CC as we've moved far away from seabios as a topic)

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, the OVMF team is now a victim of
their own success.  I had hoped that no one would do the work necessary
to get us to the point where we had to seriously think about UEFI
support but that's where we are now :-)

> Thus far we've been talking copyright rather than patents, but there's
> also this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAT_filesystem#Challenge
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAT_filesystem#Patent_infringement_lawsuits
> It almost doesn't matter who prevails in such a lawsuit; the
> *possibility* of such a lawsuit gives people cold feet. Blame the

Just to say it once so I don't have to ever say it again.

I'm not going to discuss anything relating to patents and FAT publicly.
Everyone should consult with their respective lawyers on such issues.

Copyright is straight forward.  Patents are not.


Anthony Liguori

> Laszlo

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]