On 04/23/20 11:19, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > (10) *However*, in the subsequent patches (#5 and #6), you are > introducing content (PlatformPei and AcpiPlatformDxe) that is under > BSD-2-Clause-Patent. > > Meaning that BhyvePkg needs a License.txt that's similar to > OvmfPkg/License.txt: > > - it should list *two* licenses, > > - the license blocks should be separated visually (e.g. a long line of > "====="), > > - both license blocks should have their SPDX identifiers, > > - the "default" license -- BSD-2-Clause-Patent --should be at the top, > > - the "non-default" license -- namely BSD-2-Clause -- should be at the > bottom, and it should *list* the modules that are covered by it.
I'm just realizing that, unfortunately, patches #5 and #6 introduce modules where each module *in itself* is not consistently covered by a single license. In other words, PlatformPei is a mix of BSD-2-Clause-Patent and BSD-2-Clause. So is AcpiPlatformDxe. BUt, I *think* the language seen in "OvmfPkg/License.txt" should accommodate that too. It goes: Some files are subject to the following license, the [...] license. Those files are located in: - [directory] - [directory] It says "some files", and where they are. It doesn't seem to imply that *all* files under those directories are covered by the non-default license. So please just list all those module directories in this (non-default) part of "BhyvePkg/License.txt" that have *at least one* file covered by "BSD-2-Clause". Thanks Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#57938): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/57938 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/73165367/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
