[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: El-Haj-Mahmoud, Samer
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [edk2] EDK II & GPL - Re: OVMF BoF @ KVM Forum 2015
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 19:11:26 +0000

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:address@hidden On Behalf Of Jordan Justen
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:58 PM
To: Andrew Fish <address@hidden>
Cc: Lenny Szubowicz <address@hidden>; Karen Noel <address@hidden>; Ard 
Biesheuvel <address@hidden>; edk2-devel-01 <address@hidden>; Reza Jelveh 
<address@hidden>; Alexander Graf <address@hidden>; qemu devel list 
<address@hidden>; Hannes Reinecke <address@hidden>; Gabriel L. Somlo (GMail) 
<address@hidden>; Peter Jones <address@hidden>; Peter Batard <address@hidden>; 
Gerd Hoffmann <address@hidden>; Cole Robinson <address@hidden>; Paolo Bonzini 
<address@hidden>; address@hidden; Laszlo Ersek <address@hidden>; Ademar de 
Souza Reis Jr. <address@hidden>
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 <address@hidden> 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?

edk2-devel mailing list

reply via email to

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