On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 10:14:19AM +0200, Patrick Georgi wrote: > Am Montag, den 05.10.2009, 09:55 +0200 schrieb Daniel Mack: > > The code is derived from GPL'ed sources, so it's GPL, yes. But quoting > > from the LICENSES file: > > > > The copyright on libpayload is owned by various individual developers > > and/or companies. Please check the individual source files for details. > > > > So where so you see the problem? > This statement talks about copyright. The issue is licensing. > > Right now, libpayload is BSD licensed, so users of the library are free > to do whatever they please with the code (except removing copyright > notices) > > A libpayload with your patches becomes (as a combined work) GPL licensed > (the BSD portions are sublicensed as GPL, which is possible), which > restricts the uses of it, and imposes conditions on the user beyond > leaving the copyright notices alone. > > > It would be possible to add a "GPL" configuration flag, and let the OHCI > driver depend on it, so people have to choose "libpayload, GPL edition" > to get this driver. > > But then, what happens if someone comes along with a zfs driver (derived > from OpenSolaris, hence CDDL)? People have to decide to use either BSD > +CDDL or BSD+GPL code - ie. either OHCI or ZFS, as the GPL doesn't allow > code under different licenses, and both GPL and CDDL don't allow > sublicensing. > > Such a model isn't really sustainable with many licenses (and why should > the GPL get any special treatment?), and that's the (good) reason why > very few projects do that.
Ok, I can't judge that. And I can't change the license as I'm not the author of the original sources. Up to you to decide then :) Daniel -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
