On 09/02/14 17:48, Reza Jelveh wrote: > On 02/09/14 17:38, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> Are you asking if this code would be acceptable in another *Pkg/ >> directory, distinct from OvmfPkg/? >> >> In that case, you'd still have to comply with *that* package's >> "Contributions.txt" and "License.txt". And they all look like OvmfPkg's. >> >> (Except maybe Fat*Pkg's, but that one not only allows redistributors to >> curtail the end-user's rights, it *requires* them to do so.) > > Yes, that is exactly what I was asking. Feng was suggesting a filesystems pkg. > Could we just make a Filesystem package with a more liberal license and move > fatpkg under the same banner?
(I'm not the proper person to talk to in this regard. I'm responding out of politeness.) As I said, I have no clue what rules apply if you create a new TopLevelPkg/. Regarding Fat*Pkg/, the license that covers those will not change. It can't. That code was implemented based on Microsoft's specification, and that specification incurs the restrictions. They cannot be relaxed *on that implementation*. Regarding the word "liberal". GPL favors the end-user's rights, hence it is not liberal towards the redistributor. BSDL is the opposite -- it is liberal towards the redistributor (for example, it allows the redistributor to close down the source code for redistribution, harming the end-user). So your words "more liberal license" are ambiguous; a GPL-covered TopLevelPkg would *not* be more liberal in the redistributor's eye (which is what Intel seem to care about). Honestly, we've been through this umpteen times; you just weren't around (and I guess it had been discussed several times before I came around as well). Here are some simple operating assumptions: - Fat*Pkg is not free software, and will never be. - GPL code is not accepted for the whole of edk2, because that would require Intel's customers to be careful not to include such code when they ship proprietary (closed source) edk2 derivatives. They just don't want to look, and want to operate under the convenient assumption that "all of edk2 is BSDL, hence close-able". This likely excludes a brand new, GPL'd, TopLevelPkg as well. - You can fork edk2, add any GPL'd filesystem driver, and distribute the bundle under the GPL. That's OK, because the GPL and the no-advertising-clause BSDL are compatible. But, again, you're not helped by my opinion. Talk to Intel people directly. A potential BSDL-CDDL compatibility looks like the best avenue thus far, for the HFS+ driver. (IANAL, this is my personal opinion, yada yada yada.) Laszlo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel
