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.
I don't think simply having a GplDriverPkg in the tree would have any consequences for a platform that doesn't use any code in that package. Obviously we could not make any core packages rely on that package. This would just be a sanctioned, clear landing place for people that cannot, or will not provide their driver under a permissive license. This license will limit who can use drivers from this package. For that reason, I hope that we will always ask if a contribution can be permissively licensed instead. Personally, I would prefer a 2-clause BSD only tree for simplicity, but unfortunately, that sort of restriction has its own drawbacks as well. (frustrated contributors and less contributions) FWIW, I don't mind if the consensus is that GplDriverPkg must live in a separate repo. But, it would be nice to hear a good reason why it must live elsewhere. (And, why that doesn't also apply to FatBinPkg.) -Jordan > -----Original Message----- > From: edk2-devel [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jordan > Justen > Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:58 PM > To: Andrew Fish <[email protected]> > Cc: Lenny Szubowicz <[email protected]>; Karen Noel <[email protected]>; Ard > Biesheuvel <[email protected]>; edk2-devel-01 > <[email protected]>; Reza Jelveh <[email protected]>; Alexander Graf > <[email protected]>; qemu devel list <[email protected]>; Hannes Reinecke > <[email protected]>; Gabriel L. Somlo (GMail) <[email protected]>; Peter Jones > <[email protected]>; Peter Batard <[email protected]>; Gerd Hoffmann > <[email protected]>; Cole Robinson <[email protected]>; Paolo Bonzini > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Laszlo Ersek > <[email protected]>; Ademar de Souza Reis Jr. <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [edk2] EDK II & GPL - Re: OVMF BoF @ KVM Forum 2015 > > On 2015-09-09 10:04:50, Andrew Fish wrote: > > > > > On Sep 9, 2015, at 9:17 AM, Jordan Justen <[email protected]> > > > 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 required? > > > > > > > I think we would need a separate repo, like the FAT driver. That is > > the only way to deal with the license issues. > > There doesn't seem to be any guiding rules here. For example, I > think some people are not comfortable with the FatBinPkg being in > the tree due to the license. Why is that okay? > > > > With regards to adding it directly into the EDK II tree, here are > > > some potential concerns that I might anticipate hearing from the > > > community: > > > > > > * It will make it easier for contributors to choose GPL compared to > > > a permissive license, thereby limiting some users of the > > > contribution > > > > > > * GPL code will more easily be copied into the permissively licensed > > > packages > > > > > > * Some might refuse to look at EDK II entirely if it has a directory > > > with GPL source code in it > > > > > > > Or have their rights to contribute revoked since this is a fundamental > > change, and would require employees to get reauthorized by their legal > > departments to contribute. > > We've recently expanded beyond just allowing BSD code into the tree, > and that appeared to be no big deal. No one brought this up as a > fundamental change. > > Just to be clear, are you saying Apple probably won't be able to > contribute to EDK II if there is any GPL licensed code in the tree? > (Even if it is contained in a clearly indicated package.) I guess > using dual-licensed BSD/GPL is okay though? > (EmbeddedPkg/Library/FdtLib) > > -Jordan > _______________________________________________ > edk2-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
