On 03/20/19 14:03, Lars Kurth wrote:
>
>
> On 15/03/2019, 17:48, "Lars Kurth" <lars.ku...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 15/03/2019, 10:18, "Julien Grall" <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > EDK2 is converting the full copyright in each file to SDPX
> identifier. While the
> > copyright looks like an MIT license, it has never been
> confirmed. Andrew Cooper
> > suggested you might be able to confirm.
> >
> > Is there a web-link to the files/repos such that I don’t have to
> clone the repo
> > Lars
>
> Here an example of files from Xen public headers:
>
>
> https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=tree;f=xen/include/public;h=0618b0134d2b9babcba71a3f0f86be5a84468b50;hb=HEAD
>
> OK, this makes this easy then. Because in all likelihood, the files were
> copied from xen/include/public and then the COPYING file
> https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=blob;f=xen/include/public/COPYING
> applies, which states that everything in this directory is MIT, unless stated
> otherwise in the file.
>
> So as long as someone confirms that the files in OvmfPkg/Include came
> from xen/include/public, this is a clear case of a MIT license
> If they are files from other directories in Xen, check the COPYING file
> in the original directory (or if there is none in the parent directory) and
> check the COPYING file
>
> I am not so clear about where the files in XenBusDxe came from, but the
> same principle applies.
>
> If someone groups these files by "original directory in Xen" to File ...
> I am happy to do a final sanity check and sign it off and/or deal with any
> unclear cases
>
> Nobody stepped up, sigh.
Sorry, no capacity. I suggested to handle this in a separate TianoCore
BZ, with much more focused context. I asked Mike to file that BZ (he had
offered earlier, if I understood correctly), or else to notify me to
file it.
> I am also VERY confused by this thread.
Not surprising -- this is a side topic in the thread we're in.
> Is the issue that you don’t trust that the license specified in the files are
> correct?
No -- the question is whether the license included in the files
mentioned is indeed the MIT license, suitable for a replacement with the
appropriate SPDX license ID.
>
> > (2.2.2) Files that seem to be covered by the MIT license.
> >
> > OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/arch-arm/xen.h
>
> I can't identify where in the Xen tree this file came from. There is no
> corresponding xen.h file in the Xen tree at [xen.git] / xen / include /
> public / arch-arm /
> @Julien, @Anthony: can you clarify
This file was first added to edk2 in b94c3ac93d57 ("Ovmf/Xen: implement
XenHypercallLib for ARM", 2015-02-28).
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/commit/b94c3ac93d57
And from the Xen project (I think), it was Reviewed-by: Stefano
Stabellini <stefano.stabell...@eu.citrix.com>. (I vaguely recall that
Stefano's emai has changed since.)
>
> > 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
>
> These all appear to originate from [xen.git] / xen / include / public
> In the Xen tree these all have explicit MIT licenses, which implies that the
> license headers are indeed correct.
Thanks -- so can we replace the license blocks with
SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
? (See e.g. <https://spdx.org/ids-how>.)
But, again, this should be discussed in that separate BZ then.
>
> > OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe/XenBus.c
> > OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe/XenStore.c
> > OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe/XenStore.h
>
> I do not know where these files come from. The files do not appear to come
> from a Xen project repo.
See commit a9090a94bb4a ("OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe: Add XenStore client
implementation", 2014-10-29), by Anthony.
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/commit/a9090a94bb4a
The commit message states,
> Origin: FreeBSD 10.0
> License: This patch adds several files under the MIT licence.
> So, unless you trust that the license in the headers are correct, the right
> thing would be to identify the source and check whether the license text has
> been imported unmodified
We do trust that the license blocks, as they exist, are correct. Where
we need help & support is the mapping/replacement of those verbose
license blocks to/with SPDX-License-Identifier tags.
> Maybe Anthony can do this, if this indeed is needed
Thanks,
Laszlo
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
