Laszlo, If you look at patch V4 #6, you will see the Readme.md has been added that lists all the licenses in use. There are more than just the default BSD license and the 3 components in the OvmfPkg. I prefer the idea of using Readme.md to provide an clear inventory of the licenses in use in the entire repository.
+The majority of the content in the EDK II open source project uses a +[BSD 2-Clause License](License.txt). The EDK II open source project contains +the following components that are covered by additional licenses: +* [AppPkg/Applications/Python/Python-2.7.2/Tools/pybench](AppPkg/Applications/Python/Python-2.7.2/Tools/pybench/LICENSE) +* [AppPkg/Applications/Python/Python-2.7.2](AppPkg/Applications/Python/Python-2.7.2/LICENSE) +* [AppPkg/Applications/Python/Python-2.7.10](AppPkg/Applications/Python/Python-2.7.10/LICENSE) +* [BaseTools/Source/C/BrotliCompress](BaseTools/Source/C/BrotliCompress/LICENSE) +* [MdeModulePkg/Library/BrotliCustomDecompressLib](MdeModulePkg/Library/BrotliCustomDecompressLib/LICENSE) +* [OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen](OvmfPkg/License.txt) +* [OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe](OvmfPkg/License.txt) +* [OvmfPkg/XenPvBlkDxe](OvmfPkg/License.txt) +* [CryptoPkg/Library/OpensslLib/openssl](CryptoPkg/Library/OpensslLib/openssl/LICENSE) The placement of the license files is not consistent at this point and I would prefer to make them consistent. My earlier proposal to change OvmfPkg was my first attempt to make everything consistent and with the addition of Readme.md, easily discoverable. I also found the following statement in the TianoCore Contribution Agreement on this topic: "Certain other content may be made available under other licenses as indicated in or with such Content (for example, in a License.txt file)." Thanks, Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 6:08 AM > To: Kinney, Michael D <[email protected]>; edk2- > [email protected] > Cc: Leif Lindholm <[email protected]>; Andrew Fish > <[email protected]>; Justen, Jordan L <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Patch V4 0/6] Update to Tiano Contribution > Agreement 1.1 > > On 07/25/17 01:45, Michael D Kinney wrote: > > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=628 > > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=629 > > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=642 > > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=643 > > > > New in V4 > > > * Revert change to remove commit message details from > > Contributions.txt. Instead, this section has been updated to > support > > both code and documentation patches. > > > This new agreement does not have any changes for code > contributions. > > It adds content to cover open source documentation > contributions. > > I was a bit confused why updating the source tree to 1.1 was then > justified, but "Patch v4 3/6" explains it well in the commit > message. > > I have one suggestion for patch 3: it says that CodeModule should > be > omitted from docs patches. However, I suggest that we keep the > same > format for docs patches as well; "CodeModule" (or rather > "DocModule" > could refer to the chapter or section of the gitbook that is > being > modified (chapters and appendices are kept in separate files -- > sometimes even in multiple files in separate directories -- in > the > docbook source trees anyway, and I think "DocModule" could be a > logical > match). > > Just my opinion of course. > > Regarding patch 5, and the special handling of the OvmfPkg > license file > -- today I commented on that in > <https://lists.01.org/pipermail/edk2-devel/2017- > July/012547.html>: > > > perhaps one root license file with a default license, and > pathname > > patterns that cumulatively cover all of the exceptions. Or one > license > > file per package, with a default license for the package, plus > > pathname patterns, where the patterns cumulatively cover all of > the > > exceptions within the package. > > IIUC, patch #5 would leave two license files in the tree, the > tree-wide > default, and OVMF's with some exceptions (identified by > pathnames). I > feel that representing exceptions with two methods ((a) separate > license > files that override each other, and (b) pathnames in said license > files) > is a bit confusing. > > So I think we should *either* (1) have one core license file that > spells > out all of the exceptions in the tree (by pathname), *or* (2) > have > package-level, independent license files that spell out > exceptions in > their own respective, containing packages. Currently patch 5 > seems to be > a mix of the two. > > (Note: I use *bold* above in an attempt to make myself clear; it > certainly doesn't mean that I "insist" on this. I don't feel very > strongly about this, so if you or Jordan disagree with my point, > I'm > fine. In particular I seem to recall that Jordan disagrees with > option > (1), and you likely disagree with option (2), because that's what > we > have right now.) > > Thanks > Laszlo _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
