>
>
> On 10/09/2015 16:24, Kevin Davis wrote:
> > Further leading me to guess that any actual use of those
> > implementations could lead to you actually needing to hire a real
> > attorney and not one that you find on YouTube.
>
> The good thing is that attorneys have already figured it out. I
>
> > On Sep 10, 2015, at 4:40 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10.09.15 12:04, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >> On 09/10/15 08:19, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> Am 10.09.2015 um 07:32 schrieb Jordan Justen
> :
> >>
> Laszlo's email raised the GPL question, but I was not sure
On 10/09/2015 16:24, Kevin Davis wrote:
> Further leading me to guess that any actual use of those
> implementations could lead to you actually needing to hire a real
> attorney and not one that you find on YouTube.
The good thing is that attorneys have already figured it out. IBM
figured out a
> Am 10.09.2015 um 14:17 schrieb Andrew Fish :
>
>
>> On Sep 10, 2015, at 4:40 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10.09.15 12:04, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 09/10/15 08:19, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Am 10.09.2015 um 07:32 schrieb Jordan Justen :
>>>
> Laszlo's ema
> On Sep 10, 2015, at 4:40 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10.09.15 12:04, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 09/10/15 08:19, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>>
Am 10.09.2015 um 07:32 schrieb Jordan Justen :
>>
Laszlo's email raised the GPL question, but I was not sure what the
EDK II
On 10.09.15 12:04, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 09/10/15 08:19, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Am 10.09.2015 um 07:32 schrieb Jordan Justen :
>
>>> Laszlo's email raised the GPL question, but I was not sure what the
>>> EDK II community would accept with regards to GPL. Thus ... I asked. I
>>> gues
On 09/10/15 08:19, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
>> Am 10.09.2015 um 07:32 schrieb Jordan Justen :
>> Laszlo's email raised the GPL question, but I was not sure what the
>> EDK II community would accept with regards to GPL. Thus ... I asked. I
>> guess I'm getting a better idea with regards to Apple
On 10/09/2015 08:57, Sharma Bhupesh wrote:
> So based on my limited understanding, can't the OVMF driver which
> uses features from some GPL based code, carry a dual license (GPL +
> x11 [MIT]),
No, that would require agreement from the original copyright holder,
which you are not going to get.
> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of
> Jordan Justen
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 11:03 AM
> On 2015-09-09 20:26:54, Andrew Fish wrote:
> > > On Sep 9, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Jordan Justen
> wrote:
> > > On 2015-09-09 16:05:20, Andrew Fish wrote:
> > >> So yo
> On Sep 9, 2015, at 11:19 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
>
>> Am 10.09.2015 um 07:32 schrieb Jordan Justen :
>>
>> On 2015-09-09 20:26:54, Andrew Fish wrote:
On Sep 9, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Jordan Justen
wrote:
> On 2015-09-09 16:05:20, Andrew Fish wrote:
> So you have a legal
> Am 10.09.2015 um 07:32 schrieb Jordan Justen :
>
> On 2015-09-09 20:26:54, Andrew Fish wrote:
>>> On Sep 9, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Jordan Justen wrote:
On 2015-09-09 16:05:20, Andrew Fish wrote:
So you have a legal degree and are speaking on behalf of your
employer on this subject?
The recent expansions beyond BSD where all permissive licenses (BSD like) as
far as I can tell.
I agree with Andrew, opening the door for GPL licensed code in EDK2 will have
severe consequences for products that are built using EDK2.
-Original Message-
From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-d
Adding back edk2-devel that got accidently dropped
I am against putting any GPL licensed code in EDK2. Having it live in a
separate repo and pulling an additional package from that repo is fine. But the
main EDK2 repo needs to stay GPL-free.
Thanks,
--Samer
-Original Message-
From: a
On 2015-09-09 20:26:54, Andrew Fish wrote:
> > On Sep 9, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Jordan Justen wrote:
> > On 2015-09-09 16:05:20, Andrew Fish wrote:
> >> So you have a legal degree and are speaking on behalf of your
> >> employer on this subject?
> >
> > No and no. How about you? :)
>
> No but I have
> On Sep 9, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Jordan Justen wrote:
>
> On 2015-09-09 16:05:20, Andrew Fish wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 9, 2015, at 3:24 PM, Jordan Justen wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2015-09-09 12:11:26, El-Haj-Mahmoud, Samer wrote:
The recent expansions beyond BSD where all permissive licenses (BSD
On 2015-09-09 16:05:20, Andrew Fish wrote:
>
> > On Sep 9, 2015, at 3:24 PM, Jordan Justen wrote:
> >
> > On 2015-09-09 12:11:26, El-Haj-Mahmoud, Samer wrote:
> >> The recent expansions beyond BSD where all permissive licenses (BSD
> >> like) as far as I can tell.
> >>
> >> I agree with Andrew,
> On Sep 9, 2015, at 3:24 PM, Jordan Justen wrote:
>
> On 2015-09-09 12:11:26, El-Haj-Mahmoud, Samer wrote:
>> The recent expansions beyond BSD where all permissive licenses (BSD
>> like) as far as I can tell.
>>
>> I agree with Andrew, opening the door for GPL licensed code in EDK2
>> will hav
> On Sep 9, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Jordan Justen wrote:
>
> On 2015-09-09 10:04:50, Andrew Fish wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 9, 2015, at 9:17 AM, Jordan Justen wrote:
>>>
>>> So, related to this, I wonder how the community would feel about a
>>> GplDriverPkg. Would the community allow it as a new package
On 2015-09-09 12:11:26, El-Haj-Mahmoud, Samer wrote:
> The recent expansions beyond BSD where all permissive licenses (BSD
> like) as far as I can tell.
>
> I agree with Andrew, opening the door for GPL licensed code in EDK2
> will have severe consequences for products that are built using
> EDK2.
Well, FatPkg is only superficially permissive and not even open source, so
there is a precedent. (A precedent that, I might add, happens to violate
SourceForge's the off service).
When we import edk2 into Fedora we just remove FatBinPkg. We would think twice
before contributing to it, but do no
On 2015-09-09 10:04:50, Andrew Fish wrote:
>
> > On Sep 9, 2015, at 9:17 AM, Jordan Justen wrote:
> >
> > So, related to this, I wonder how the community would feel about a
> > GplDriverPkg. Would the community allow it as a new package in EDK II
> > directly, or would a separate repo be require
> On Sep 9, 2015, at 9:17 AM, Jordan Justen wrote:
>
> On 2015-09-09 01:57:51, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 08/10/15 18:24, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> Let's do an OVMF BoF at this year's KVM Forum too.
>>
>> Here's a preliminary task list, after some off-list discussion (I tried
>> to in
22 matches
Mail list logo
