On 2015-12-10 22:24:39, Kinney, Michael D wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Justen, Jordan L > > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 10:02 PM > > > > I don't think it should be included in the same package as > > otherwise BSD licensed code. I think you should put it into a > > separate package, or perhaps repo, and you should mention the > > different license, since it is not covered by > > MdePkg/Contributions.txt. There has been some talk of removing > > FatBinPkg from the tree due to the license, so where does that > > leave this module? > > I prefer to keep this in the same package because it is associated > directly with the QuarkSoc. What about this license do you think is > not compatible with the contributor's agreement? We prefer BSD, but > other licenses are allowed. >
There is still a case to be made to separate all the content which is under an OSI (https://opensource.org/) approved license from content that is not. What if we make a https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-non-osi repository to add this and similar content under? Now that we support PACKAGES_PATH, this should work reasonably well. Then certain platforms can depend on the edk2-non-osi repo. -Jordan _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
