[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 23:11:56 +0000

Adding back edk2-devel that got accidently dropped 

I am against putting any GPL licensed code in EDK2. Having it live in a 
separate repo and pulling an additional package from that repo is fine. But the 
main EDK2 repo needs to stay GPL-free.


-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 6:05 PM
To: Jordan Justen <address@hidden>
Cc: El-Haj-Mahmoud, Samer <address@hidden>; Lenny Szubowicz <address@hidden>; 
Karen Noel <address@hidden>; Ard Biesheuvel <address@hidden>; edk2-devel-01 
<address@hidden>; Cole Robinson <address@hidden>; Ademar de Souza Reis Jr. 
<address@hidden>; Alexander Graf <address@hidden>; qemu devel list 
<address@hidden>; Gabriel L. Somlo (GMail) <address@hidden>; Peter Jones 
<address@hidden>; Peter Batard <address@hidden>; Hannes Reinecke 
<address@hidden>; Reza Jelveh <address@hidden>; Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>; 
address@hidden; Laszlo Ersek <address@hidden>; Gerd Hoffmann <address@hidden>; 
Doran, Mark <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [edk2] EDK II & GPL - Re: OVMF BoF @ KVM Forum 2015

> On Sep 9, 2015, at 3:24 PM, Jordan Justen <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 2015-09-09 12:11:26, El-Haj-Mahmoud, Samer wrote:
>> 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.
> I don't think simply having a GplDriverPkg in the tree would have any 
> consequences for a platform that doesn't use any code in that package.
> Obviously we could not make any core packages rely on that package.

So you have a legal degree and are speaking on behalf of your employer on this 

> This would just be a sanctioned, clear landing place for people that 
> cannot, or will not provide their driver under a permissive license.
> This license will limit who can use drivers from this package. For 
> that reason, I hope that we will always ask if a contribution can be 
> permissively licensed instead.
> Personally, I would prefer a 2-clause BSD only tree for simplicity, 
> but unfortunately, that sort of restriction has its own drawbacks as 
> well. (frustrated contributors and less contributions)
> FWIW, I don't mind if the consensus is that GplDriverPkg must live in 
> a separate repo. But, it would be nice to hear a good reason why it 
> must live elsewhere.

Because GPL is not a permissive license. An accidental git grep and copying 
some code can change the license of the code that gets the GPL code pasted into 
it. Thus having GPL code in the same repository as BSD code can end up 
accidentally converting BSD code to GPL code over time. If GPL was OK with 
everyone we would have started with GPL. The good thing is the BDS code is GPL 
compatible so it can be used for GPL code and bug fixes in the BDS code can be 
merged into to GPL code, but this is a one way operation. 

If you don’t believe me please feel free to sit down and have a long 
conversation with Intel IP lawyers.

> (And, why that doesn't also apply to FatBinPkg.)

There is no IP leakage from a binary. This FAT driver is licensed for use with 
EFI, and given this is a EFI code base that seemed like a good thing. 

I don’t pretent to understand the GPL FAT thing, I guess it is some kind of 
civil disobedience. it does not mater what license you strap on the code the 
the device makers still have to “pay the man”. 


Andrew Fish

PS As I stated before I’m fine removing all the binaries from the main repo, as 
you don’t really want binaries in your production repo, and source level 
debugging is a nice feature and all. 

> -Jordan
>> -----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?
>> (EmbeddedPkg/Library/FdtLib)
>> -Jordan
>> _______________________________________________
>> edk2-devel mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.01.org_mai
>> lman_listinfo_edk2-2Ddevel&d=BQICAg&c=eEvniauFctOgLOKGJOplqw&r=1HnUuX
>> D1wDvw67rut5_idw&m=yvzCzDdEDVjZEzZI9AOKS3bV8FD8sjx1LqCww7Vn3rA&s=p1Kc
>> an7EiiR_ZC78qKT0jfGMD0yx2Wpv5vJ6LnwXkD0&e=
> _______________________________________________
> edk2-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.01.org_mail
> man_listinfo_edk2-2Ddevel&d=BQICAg&c=eEvniauFctOgLOKGJOplqw&r=1HnUuXD1wDvw67rut5_idw&m=yvzCzDdEDVjZEzZI9AOKS3bV8FD8sjx1LqCww7Vn3rA&s=p1Kcan7EiiR_ZC78qKT0jfGMD0yx2Wpv5vJ6LnwXkD0&e=

reply via email to

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