Re: [coreboot] Licensing question
Hello Frank, Please can you have a look into this thread to see what it has brought. Nice would be to get answers for questions regarding the redistribution of ROMs/Firmware. Additionally I would like to consult some undocumented bit which is documented in SB600 but not SB710. Maybe it is a documentation issue. Maybe not. More info [coreboot] [PATCH] RFC AMD powernow generation for pre fam 0fh Thanks, Rudolf Thanks for the great news! Please do you know what kind of BSD license it is? The two clause/three clause? The Open Source Review Board of AMD has decided the upcoming release of Agesa and the chipset CIM modules for our Family14h CPU will be under a dual license: GPLv2 and BSD. As the coreboot community, do you have any issue with this? If not, are there any specific coreboot requirements that must be met because of the dual license scheme? Thanks for your help. I'm not aware of any issues so far. I'm perfectly fine with GPLv2. However for dual licensing scheme some kind of policy of what changes are under what license must be adopted/developed. I can tell now only I don't know/I cannot think out any implications out of that I hope others will jump in eventually with some ideas how to handle that. Most likely we can assume what linux kernel folks are doing (and avoid kind of flame wars in this topic). As a side note, I would like to ask about the permissions for example to redistribute the VGA ROM images/EC images/Microcode is this covered somehow in the release also? How is the plan to integrate to code into Coreboot? I hope other developers share some ideas too (especially if I missed something) Thank you, Rudolf -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Licensing question
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: It is perfectly fine to include a code release into coreboot which is dual licensed GPLv2 and BSD. But it is important to remember that from the point that it is included in coreboot, the copy of the release that exists within coreboot will be licensed *exclusively* under GPLv2. As long as the code does not change, this is at most a technicality. But if the released code that is included in coreboot is changed within coreboot, because the community sees some opportunities to improve coreboot overall by doing so, then those changes are also licensed exclusively as GPLv2. This means that those changes can not be included back into the original dual licensed codebase, or into any derivative which chose to use either the dual license or the BSD license. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. It seems to me that it is most beneficial overall for AMD to release the code as BSD only for the reason you mention here. For AMD to see maximum benefit for their contributions here, and for the technical advantages of reducing diffs between AMD and Coreboot sources (good for everyone), the Coreboot community should make it easy for AMD to port changes back into their tree. I like the GPLv2 and all, but I think BSD is more practical and will be most beneficial for all parties in this case. Unless there is a heavy burden placed on Coreboot developers by using BSD-licensed AGESA code that I am not seeing here? /my $0.02 -- David Hendricks (dhendrix) Systems Software Engineer, Google Inc. -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
[coreboot] Licensing question
Hi All, The Open Source Review Board of AMD has decided the upcoming release of Agesa and the chipset CIM modules for our Family14h CPU will be under a dual license: GPLv2 and BSD. As the coreboot community, do you have any issue with this? If not, are there any specific coreboot requirements that must be met because of the dual license scheme? Thanks for your help. Frank Vibrans -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Licensing question
Hello Frank, Thanks for the great news! Please do you know what kind of BSD license it is? The two clause/three clause? The Open Source Review Board of AMD has decided the upcoming release of Agesa and the chipset CIM modules for our Family14h CPU will be under a dual license: GPLv2 and BSD. As the coreboot community, do you have any issue with this? If not, are there any specific coreboot requirements that must be met because of the dual license scheme? Thanks for your help. I'm not aware of any issues so far. I'm perfectly fine with GPLv2. However for dual licensing scheme some kind of policy of what changes are under what license must be adopted/developed. I can tell now only I don't know/I cannot think out any implications out of that I hope others will jump in eventually with some ideas how to handle that. Most likely we can assume what linux kernel folks are doing (and avoid kind of flame wars in this topic). As a side note, I would like to ask about the permissions for example to redistribute the VGA ROM images/EC images/Microcode is this covered somehow in the release also? How is the plan to integrate to code into Coreboot? I hope other developers share some ideas too (especially if I missed something) Thank you, Rudolf -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Licensing question
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Vibrans, Frank frank.vibr...@amd.com wrote: The Open Source Review Board of AMD has decided the upcoming release of Agesa and the chipset CIM modules for our Family14h CPU will be under a dual license: GPLv2 and BSD. As the coreboot community, do you have any issue with this? If not, are there any specific coreboot requirements that must be met because of the dual license scheme? Thanks for your help. I believe that coreboot is GPLv2+, so for maximum license compatibility, all AMD code would preferably be GPLv2+ (and not just GPLv2). Thanks, --R -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Licensing question
Hi Frank, Gary, community, Vibrans, Frank wrote: The Open Source Review Board of AMD has decided the upcoming release of Agesa and the chipset CIM modules for our Family14h CPU will be under a dual license: GPLv2 and BSD. I think this is great news! AMD has consistently been the best hardware choice for systems where an open firmware makes a big difference and this development will make sure that the most modern AMD hardware will work exceptionally well with coreboot. I think this is very exciting indeed, and I want to express my appreciation and gratitude to the Board who made this possible! THANK YOU! As the coreboot community, do you have any issue with this? If not, are there any specific coreboot requirements that must be met because of the dual license scheme? Thanks for your help. I don't think requirements is the right word, but there are indeed some points to consider about cooperation between the coreboot community and the team(s) within AMD that are related to the codebase. This may warrant some discussion. There are also some points about the licensing itself, though they are simpler to deal with because the licenses have clear requirements; It is perfectly fine to include a code release into coreboot which is dual licensed GPLv2 and BSD. But it is important to remember that from the point that it is included in coreboot, the copy of the release that exists within coreboot will be licensed *exclusively* under GPLv2. As long as the code does not change, this is at most a technicality. But if the released code that is included in coreboot is changed within coreboot, because the community sees some opportunities to improve coreboot overall by doing so, then those changes are also licensed exclusively as GPLv2. This means that those changes can not be included back into the original dual licensed codebase, or into any derivative which chose to use either the dual license or the BSD license. This may or may not be a problem, for AMD and for the coreboot community, because in the worst case there could be a significant contribution which is under an open license, but which can not legally be included by some users of the original code release. I guess it is up to AMD to decide, and I would not be at all surprised if this has already been considered by the Open Source Review Board. Another result from changes made to the released code as included in coreboot is that the code included into coreboot might become a de facto fork of AMD's source code, depending on how AMD will continue to work on the code internally. This could also lead to a situation where an important improvement (by AMD) that has been based on the released code can not benefit coreboot, and others who include the released code and distribute it under GPLv2. This is also only a potential problem, depending on the interfaces involved in including the released code into coreboot, and again on the way AMD will continue to improve the released code. The above all assumes that the released code will be linked into coreboot. A file in CBFS with certain criteria for the interface between coreboot and the file is not considered linking today; e.g. payloads can have any license, like option ROMs, and files such as the VSA infrastructure for AMD Geode. If the AGESA codebase is ran by AMD as an open source project of it's own, and there was a clear interface between coreboot and AGESA, then I believe the points I mention above would all be moot. I hope I managed to add some useful thoughts here. Rudolf Marek wrote: Please do you know what kind of BSD license it is? The two clause/three clause? This is a good question. Two clause/three clause/advertising clause refers to the number of conitions listed in the license. BSD two clause is the most permissive license, with only two conditions: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. BSD license without further qualifiers usually means three-clause: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. Neither the name of the ORGANIZATION nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. And finally there's BSD four clause, or BSD with advertising clause: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
Re: [coreboot] Licensing question
Hello, Robinson Tryon wrote: I believe that coreboot is GPLv2+, No, coreboot is licensed under GPLv2 only. Thanks! //Peter -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Licensing question
Am Samstag, 18. Dezember 2010, um 02:07:50 schrieb Peter Stuge: But if the released code that is included in coreboot is changed within coreboot, because the community sees some opportunities to improve coreboot overall by doing so, then those changes are also licensed exclusively as GPLv2. This means that those changes can not be included back into the original dual licensed codebase, or into any derivative which chose to use either the dual license or the BSD license. It's up to the developer of the change to decide the license of their changes. That is, a change could be added with the explicit statement (eg. in the commit message) that it's licensed both under GPLv2 and BSD-l, and it could be taken for BSD-l only uses (while originating with coreboot). The only thing to keep in mind is that the combined work of coreboot+AGESA will be GPL only - this only affects distributors of coreboot+AGESA binaries who will have to treat their changes to AGESA (as delivered with coreboot) as licensed under GPLv2 only (unless a clean calling interface is defined as described in your mail that would separate coreboot and AGESA sufficiently). Patrick -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
Re: [coreboot] Licensing question
-Original Message- From: coreboot-bounces+scott=notabs@coreboot.org [mailto:coreboot-bounces+scott=notabs@coreboot.org] On Behalf Of Rudolf Marek Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 06:08 PM To: Vibrans, Frank Cc: Simpson, Gary; coreboot@coreboot.org Subject: Re: [coreboot] Licensing question ]Hello Frank, ]Thanks for the great news! Please do you know what kind of BSD license it is? ]The two clause/three clause? The Open Source Review Board of AMD has decided the upcoming release of Agesa and the chipset CIM modules for our Family14h CPU will be under a dual license: GPLv2 and BSD. As the coreboot community, do you have any issue with this? If not, are there any specific coreboot requirements that must be met because of the dual license scheme? Thanks for your help. ]I'm not aware of any issues so far. I'm perfectly fine with GPLv2. However for ]dual licensing scheme some kind of policy of what changes are under what license ]must be adopted/developed. I can tell now only I don't know/I cannot think out ]any implications out of that ]I hope others will jump in eventually with some ideas how to handle that. Most ]likely we can assume what linux kernel folks are doing (and avoid kind of flame ]wars in this topic). ]As a side note, I would like to ask about the permissions for example to ]redistribute the VGA ROM images/EC images/Microcode is this covered somehow in ]the release also? Yes, I was supposed to ask about this but have not done so yet. The last time I saw it, the family 14h agesa already included the SMU binary image (F14NbSmuFirmware.h) and microcode patch images (F14MicrocodePatchxxx.c). Adding the video option rom (vbios) image and EC image using the same license would be most helpful. It is possible that AMD has already done this. A related request is for microcode patch and vbios images for older platforms. Coreboot does include some licensed family 10h microcode patches, but I am not sure that they are current. It is awkward to ask each coreboot developer to extract vbios and/or microcode patch binaries from his production BIOS. It would be useful to have a better way for a coreboot developer to obtain vbios and microcode patch binaries for the AMD family 10h platforms. ]How is the plan to integrate to code into Coreboot? AMD has already done the integration. I wouldn't be surprised if coreboot+ seabios is booting Windows on the reference board now. Everyone needs to set aside some money for purchase of an AMD family 14h netbook when they go on sale in a few weeks. Putting coreboot on these units should be fairly easy. Thanks, Scott ]I hope other developers share some ideas too (especially if I missed something) ]Thank you, ]Rudolf -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
