Hi Mike,
On 03/13/19 18:54, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> Hello,
>
> BZ: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1373
>
> This change is based on the following emails:
> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/edk2-devel/2019-February/036260.html
> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/edk2-devel/2018-October/030385.html
>
> RFCs with detailed process for the license change:
> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/edk2-devel/2019-March/037669.html
> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/edk2-devel/2019-March/037500.html
>
> I have posted the patch series for review on the following branch
> using edk2-stable201903 as the base for the patch series.
>
> https://github.com/mdkinney/edk2/tree/Bug_1373_BsdPatentLicense
>
> The commits in patch series can be viewed here:
>
> https://github.com/mdkinney/edk2/commits/Bug_1373_BsdPatentLicense
>
> The patch series has one patch per package along with a few patches
> to update the license information in the root of the edk2 repository
> as described in the RFC V2.
>
> Due to the size of the patch series, I prefer to not send the
> patch emails. Instead, please perform code reviews using content
> from the branch.
>
> All EDK II package maintainers and package reviewers should provide
> review feedback for their packages. The critical part of the review
> is:
> 1) Any changes that cause build breaks or logic changes. These code
> changes are intended to only modify license contents in comment
> blocks.
> 2) Any file that has been changed to BSD+Patent, but should remain
> with the current license.
> 3) Any file that that has not changed to BSD+Patent, but should be
> changed to BSD+Patent.
>
> Feedback and Reviewed-by emails should identify the patch the feedback
> applies using the patch summary listed below. The goal is to complete
> all reviews to support the commit of these patches on April 9, 2019.
[...]
> 837a3425bf OvmfPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
(1) For the commit message, I have the following suggestions:
(1.1) please remove the "Cc:" tags, because you aren't actually posting
the patches to the mailing list, so the people listed in Cc have
no chance to receive the patch by email ("carbon-copied")
(1.2) please remove the "Branch for review" reference as well -- while I
certainly prefer such branch references ot remain valid forever,
in practice their longevity is quite dubious in comparison to e.g.
mailing list archive links.
(2) Regarding the patch body:
(2.1) I reviewed each of the 348 hunks in the patch file. They are
correct, with one exception:
(2.1.1) "create-release.py" doesn't only contain a copyright block
(which is correctly patches), but it also *generates* a
copyright block. (Search it manually for
"http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php";.) In my
opinion, we should simply retire this python script, *before*
the conversion is started -- I don't remember using it in recent
years, plus now we have the stable tags, for open source
community-oriented releases.
(2.2) 30 files under OvmfPkg remain without "SPDX-License-Identifier:
BSD-2-Clause-Patent" after the patch is applied. These can be
categorized as follows:
(2.2.1) Files without any copyright notices (very small files,
README-like files, generated files):
OvmfPkg/Csm/Csm16/ReadMe.txt
OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/README
OvmfPkg/README
OvmfPkg/Library/XenHypercallLib/Ia32/hypercall.nasm
OvmfPkg/Library/XenHypercallLib/X64/hypercall.nasm
OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe/Helpers.c
OvmfPkg/QemuVideoDxe/VbeShim.h
It's fine to leave these untouched.
(2.2.2) Files that seem to be covered by the MIT license.
OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/arch-arm/xen.h
OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/arch-x86/xen-x86_32.h
OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/arch-x86/xen-x86_64.h
OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/arch-x86/xen.h
OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/event_channel.h
OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/grant_table.h
OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/hvm/hvm_op.h
OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/hvm/params.h
OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/io/blkif.h
OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/io/console.h
OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/io/protocols.h
OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/io/ring.h
OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/io/xenbus.h
OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/io/xs_wire.h
OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/memory.h
OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/xen-compat.h
OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/xen.h
OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe/XenBus.c
OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe/XenStore.c
OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe/XenStore.h
It's OK to leave these untouched, for now. Later, we should
probably replace their license blocks with
"SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT" (as appropriate). It might make
sense to file a TianoCore BZ about them immediately, with a
BZ-dependency on BZ#1373.
(2.2.3) The following file is untouched, but it should be updated. It
requires special (not scripted) treatment.
OvmfPkg/License.txt
(2.2.4) The following files seem to be under 2-BSDL, but without a link
to <http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php> -- which is
why I believe the script must have missed them. They should be
converted manually.
OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe/GrantTable.c
OvmfPkg/XenPvBlkDxe/BlockFront.c
Important: when you update the series, please do not force-push your
current "Bug_1373_BsdPatentLicense" branch! Instead, please push
"Bug_1373_BsdPatentLicense_v2".
[...]
> 908d82c3fd ArmVirtPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
(3) The same commit message observations apply as under (1).
With those commit message updates, the ArmVirtPkg patch (currently
commit 908d82c3fd in your branch) will be eligible for my R-b. The
conversions done by the patch appear correct, no links to
<http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php> remain, and after the
patch, no file remains without "SPDX-License-Identifier:
BSD-2-Clause-Patent".
I haven't done any build testing, partly because the patches look safe,
and partly because any future updates (to OvmfPkg, MdePkg, MdeModulePkg
etc) would invalidate such testing anyway. We should do build testing
once all of the patches in the series have been approved. (More
precisely, a DSC can be test-built if its own package, and all the
packages it depends upon, have been reviewed.)
Thank you!
Laszlo
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
