On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 02:46:32PM +0100, Gürkan Myczko wrote: > 14:40 < tarzeau> coreboot sources are partly GPL-2-only (aka GPL-2) some are > GPL-2-or-later (aka GPL-2+), is it possible to clean that up? > 14:40 < tarzeau> relicense to one? > 14:40 < maxii> but cb_parse_framebuffer() doesn't seem to get called > 14:40 < tarzeau> debian/ubuntu packaging effort details: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=946959 > 14:41 < maxii> nico_h: I think I am seeing the problem, not the solution. > But at least a possible reason/the origin of the problem > 14:41 < nico_h> tarzeau: you can just ship it as GPL-2-only, if that makes > it easier > 14:42 < tarzeau> well not really an option, i'm not the authority of the > source files, so only authority of them can do so (if i did, it'd be a fork) > 14:43 < tarzeau> (and even if i did and wanted, i can't just relicense stuff > that's already published by another license) > 14:44 -!- r1mikey [~r1mikey@2620:10d:c092:200::1:2fbd] has joined #coreboot > 14:44 < nico_h> tarzeau: there's the point, you can relicense it in this > case. and if you ship binaries that are build from both GPL-2-only and > GPL-2-or-later you implicitly relicense parts of it anyway
I don't see any problem either. GPL-2-only and GPL-2-or-higher are very compatible licenses. If you combine them, the result is GPL-2-only (although if someone picks just GPL2+ pieces, they revert to compatibility with GPL3 and so on. That's the very point of license alternatives. Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ The ill-thought conversion to time64_t will make us suffer from ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ the Y292B problem. So let's move the Epoch by 435451400064000000 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ (plus a safety margin in case of bad physicists) and make it ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ unsigned -- that'll almost double the range.
