> On Sep 9, 2015, at 1:37 PM, Blibbet <blib...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Short term an OVMF-centric solution is good. > > But long term, I think Linux needs a Linux-friendly IBV to build native > UEFI -- as well as OVMF-flavored UEFI -- with non-BSD licensed community > code.
I don’t understand the issue BSD licensed code? It should be compatible with the GPL? The GPL code could merge bug fixes from the BSD source base as needed. It is just the BDS source base that can not take back GPL code. > If you restrict this to just OVMF, any GPL innovations will only > happen at virtual level. Right now, boot loaders (eg, rEFInd) and VM > projects (VirtualBox) are the only ones to benefit from UEFI > non-BSD-licensed code. An IBV could offer these enhancements to Linux > OEMs, not just server VMs. Linaro is already an IBV, to a degree, they > produce UEFI binaries for the supported dev boards, as part of BSP build > process. > > Look at the coreboot blog, the other week the Purism BIOS developer was > talking about a "Free Software port of FSP". That should be a shared > effort by all Linux OEMs/vendors, not shouldered by a single OEM. A > Linux-centric IBV could be getting help from multiple companies -- like > Linaro does with ARM -- to help with this effort. It could be part of > Linux Foundation's Core Infrastructure Initiative, maybe. > > They should also tailor Linux-friendly ACPI, like recent thread about > Linux standardization of _DSD. As well as not include a WBPT table in > Linux OEM systems, and look at the other tables to see what's should be > removed. > In general it is not good form to discuss pre-released industry standard stuff not on the standards group mailing list. The idea is to not have folks implementing pre released stuff that causes interoperability issues. > Alternately, the UEFI Forum should create a non-BSD tree to contain > this, not just focus on BSD for the fully-closed-source end of the > spectrum, and work with some FOSS-centric OSVs to better support UEFI > using their community's models. > The UEFI Forum only publishes the UEFI tests, SCTs. The UEFI Forum owns the specifications, but does not own or advocate for implementations (other than advocating conformance to the specification). Thanks, Andrew Fish > I hope an IBV is listening. Create a separate project from your current > closed-source code, and fully-embrace the open source community. > > Today, Sage Engineering is the only Open Source-friendly IBV that I'm > aware of. They mostly focus on coreboot, not UEFI, though. (Like > Phoenix, their blob recently went dark, I hope they're doing ok.) > > _______________________________________________ > edk2-devel mailing list > edk2-devel@lists.01.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.01.org_mailman_listinfo_edk2-2Ddevel&d=BQICAg&c=eEvniauFctOgLOKGJOplqw&r=1HnUuXD1wDvw67rut5_idw&m=6IPRTnR89cvM_QhLWlpGSVpLVw3zFplJaK5lgQn2zho&s=FLeN5leDXiZDkxQoHdsrXtBZzbqBkfZGeN-OGJUzklo&e= > _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
