On 12/10/2015 2:21 AM, Ren, Qiaowei wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net]
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2015 9:47 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Testing concerns around boot from UEFI
spec
On 12/04/2015 08:34 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 07:43:41AM -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
Can someone explain the licensing issue here? The Fedora comments
make this sound like this is something that's not likely to end up in distros.
The EDK codebase contains a FAT driver which has a license that
forbids reusing the code outside of the EDK project.
[quote]
Additional terms: In addition to the forgoing, redistribution and use
of the code is conditioned upon the FAT 32 File System Driver and all
derivative works thereof being used for and designed only to read
and/or write to a file system that is directly managed by Intel's
Extensible Firmware Initiative (EFI) Specification v. 1.0 and later
and/or the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) Forum's UEFI
Specifications v.2.0 and later (together the "UEFI Specifications");
only as necessary to emulate an implementation of the UEFI
Specifications; and to create firmware, applications, utilities and/or drivers.
[/quote]
So while the code is open source, it is under a non-free license,
hence Fedora will not ship it. For RHEL we're reluctantly choosing to
ship it as an exception to our normal policy, since its the only
immediate way to make UEFI support available on x86 & aarch64
So I don't think the license is a reason to refuse to allow the UEFI
feature into Nova though, nor should it prevent us using the current
EDK bios in CI for testing purposes. It is really just an issue for
distros which only want 100% free software.
For upstream CI that's also a bar that's set. So for 3rd party, it would
probably be
fine, but upstream won't happen.
Sorry, is there any decision about this? If 3rd CI needs to be added, we could
also work on it. BTW, if so, the patches could not be merged when the 3rd CI
could not still work, right?
Thanks,
Qiaowei
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
We talked about this in the nova meeting today and agreed that as long
as there is a warning emitted when this is used saying it's untested and
therefore considered experimental, we'd be OK with letting this into
mitaka. It's in Intel's best interest to provide functional testing for
it, but it wouldn't be required in this case.
I'd like the spec amended for that and then I'm +2.
--
Thanks,
Matt Riedemann
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
