Hi Simon,
sjg@google.com wrote on 12/05/2014 11:05:30 AM:
From: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org To: Bruce_Leonard@selinc.com Cc: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com, U-Boot Mailing List <u- boot@lists.denx.de>, u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Date: 12/05/2014 11:05 AM Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 25/25] x86: Add a README.x86 for U-Boot on x86 support Sent by: sjg@google.com
Hi Bruce,
On 5 December 2014 at 11:34, Bruce_Leonard@selinc.com wrote:
Hi Simon, Bin,
u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de wrote on 12/04/2014 04:03:54 PM:
From: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org To: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com Cc: U-Boot Mailing List u-boot@lists.denx.de Date: 12/04/2014 04:04 PM Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 25/25] x86: Add a README.x86 for U-Boot on x86 support Sent by: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de
Hi Bin,
On 4 December 2014 at 08:04, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com
doc/README.x86 | 123 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++
1 file changed, 123 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/README.x86
diff --git a/doc/README.x86 b/doc/README.x86 new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a79f510 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/README.x86 @@ -0,0 +1,123 @@ +# +# Copyright (C) 2014, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org +# Copyright (C) 2014, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com +# +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ +#
+U-Boot on x86 +=============
Very nice!
This is all really great work.
I do have a question though, and if it's already been asked/answered
and I
missed the thread I apologize for the noise. Part of the reason we've
held
off on doing this project (other than resources of course :) ) wasa
concern
about licensing. U-boot is released under the GPL and we're worried
that by
linking in Intel's FSP we're creating a "derived work" that would then require Intel to release the source for the FSP, which they aren't
going to
do and would leave us open to law suits. Doing it by calls into an
opaque
blob can loosely be defined as a dynamically linked library and
therefore
fall under the GPL exception clause, but our legal department
considers that
a dangerous assumption on our part.
Has anyone considered this issue? I'm not a lawyer so I get lost in
the
legalize of licences pretty fast.
Thanks again for all the work.
Well if you a legal department, that's what you pay them for and they should be able to figure this out. Clearly if it were not permitted to use the binary blobs in open source software then the blobs wouldn't be very useful. But I'm not a lawyer either and am not qualified to provide legal advice! It would be useful if you could post what you find either way. And if for some reason there is a problem, we could take it up with Intel.
Thanks for the info. We were sort of hoping that either the u-boot community or Denx SE may have already addressed this. Probably what we'll have to do is get an Intel lawyer on the phone with a copy of both the GPL and the FSP licences and just go through them item by item. We'll feedback to the list what we find out.
Have a good weekend!
V/r Bruce