On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 01:10:12PM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 12:23:18 +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 10:50:27AM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > > ...I think these files should also be given the SPDX treatment, and > > > while doing that have the explicit patent grant added by changing them > > > from BSD2 to BSD+Patent. > > > > See patch #6 ;) > > Right. But bringing it in under a license that does not include the > explicit patent grant creates uncertainty about how terrified large > slow-moving companies need to be to fine comb every individual commit > at every import/export stage.
Ok, I can quash those two commits if it makes things easier. > > > (comments on the process are welcome too, not sure I can just change the > > licence without intel explicitly acking this ...). > > Swapping an explicit license to an SPDX tag describing the same > license should not be controversial. And neither should *adding* a > patent grant to that license. (The Intel copyright statements should > obviously be retained.) > > If you feel we need to get an explicit nod from someone at Intel > ... that would be easier when Kinney wasn't on sabbatical :) Well, I'm not a lawyer, so I prefer to play safe ... If there is agreement that adding the patent grant isn't a problem that is fine with me too. take care, Gerd -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#89552): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/89552 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/90772975/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
