Laszlo, Thanks for the feedback. I will entered a few BZs based on this feedback and will provide a V2 version of the content.
Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel- > boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Laszlo Ersek > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 3:56 AM > To: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com> > Cc: Justen, Jordan L <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com>; edk2- > de...@lists.01.org; Julien Grall > <julien.gr...@arm.com>; Anthony Perard > <anthony.per...@citrix.com> > Subject: Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent > License > > Hi Mike, > > On 03/13/19 18:54, Kinney, Michael D wrote: > > Hello, > > > > BZ: > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1373 > > > > This change is based on the following emails: > > https://lists.01.org/pipermail/edk2-devel/2019- > February/036260.html > > https://lists.01.org/pipermail/edk2-devel/2018- > October/030385.html > > > > RFCs with detailed process for the license change: > > https://lists.01.org/pipermail/edk2-devel/2019- > March/037669.html > > https://lists.01.org/pipermail/edk2-devel/2019- > March/037500.html > > > > I have posted the patch series for review on the > following branch > > using edk2-stable201903 as the base for the patch > series. > > > > > https://github.com/mdkinney/edk2/tree/Bug_1373_BsdPaten > tLicense > > > > The commits in patch series can be viewed here: > > > > > https://github.com/mdkinney/edk2/commits/Bug_1373_BsdPa > tentLicense > > > > The patch series has one patch per package along with > a few patches > > to update the license information in the root of the > edk2 repository > > as described in the RFC V2. > > > > Due to the size of the patch series, I prefer to not > send the > > patch emails. Instead, please perform code reviews > using content > > from the branch. > > > > All EDK II package maintainers and package reviewers > should provide > > review feedback for their packages. The critical > part of the review > > is: > > 1) Any changes that cause build breaks or logic > changes. These code > > changes are intended to only modify license > contents in comment > > blocks. > > 2) Any file that has been changed to BSD+Patent, but > should remain > > with the current license. > > 3) Any file that that has not changed to BSD+Patent, > but should be > > changed to BSD+Patent. > > > > Feedback and Reviewed-by emails should identify the > patch the feedback > > applies using the patch summary listed below. The > goal is to complete > > all reviews to support the commit of these patches on > April 9, 2019. > > [...] > > > > 837a3425bf OvmfPkg: Replace BSD License with > BSD+Patent License > > (1) For the commit message, I have the following > suggestions: > > (1.1) please remove the "Cc:" tags, because you aren't > actually posting > the patches to the mailing list, so the people > listed in Cc have > no chance to receive the patch by email ("carbon- > copied") > > (1.2) please remove the "Branch for review" reference > as well -- while I > certainly prefer such branch references ot remain > valid forever, > in practice their longevity is quite dubious in > comparison to e.g. > mailing list archive links. > > (2) Regarding the patch body: > > (2.1) I reviewed each of the 348 hunks in the patch > file. They are > correct, with one exception: > > (2.1.1) "create-release.py" doesn't only contain a > copyright block > (which is correctly patches), but it also > *generates* a > copyright block. (Search it manually for > "http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd- > license.php".) In my > opinion, we should simply retire this python > script, *before* > the conversion is started -- I don't remember > using it in recent > years, plus now we have the stable tags, for > open source > community-oriented releases. > > (2.2) 30 files under OvmfPkg remain without "SPDX- > License-Identifier: > BSD-2-Clause-Patent" after the patch is applied. > These can be > categorized as follows: > > (2.2.1) Files without any copyright notices (very small > files, > README-like files, generated files): > > OvmfPkg/Csm/Csm16/ReadMe.txt > OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/README > OvmfPkg/README > > > OvmfPkg/Library/XenHypercallLib/Ia32/hypercall.nasm > > OvmfPkg/Library/XenHypercallLib/X64/hypercall.nasm > OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe/Helpers.c > > OvmfPkg/QemuVideoDxe/VbeShim.h > > It's fine to leave these untouched. > > (2.2.2) Files that seem to be covered by the MIT > license. > > OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/arch- > arm/xen.h > OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/arch- > x86/xen-x86_32.h > OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/arch- > x86/xen-x86_64.h > OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/arch- > x86/xen.h > > OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/event_channel.h > > OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/grant_table.h > > OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/hvm/hvm_op.h > > OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/hvm/params.h > > OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/io/blkif.h > > OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/io/console.h > > OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/io/protocols.h > > OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/io/ring.h > > OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/io/xenbus.h > > OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/io/xs_wire.h > OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/memory.h > OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/xen- > compat.h > OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/xen.h > OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe/XenBus.c > OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe/XenStore.c > OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe/XenStore.h > > It's OK to leave these untouched, for now. > Later, we should > probably replace their license blocks with > "SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT" (as > appropriate). It might make > sense to file a TianoCore BZ about them > immediately, with a > BZ-dependency on BZ#1373. > > (2.2.3) The following file is untouched, but it should > be updated. It > requires special (not scripted) treatment. > > OvmfPkg/License.txt > > (2.2.4) The following files seem to be under 2-BSDL, > but without a link > to <http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd- > license.php> -- which is > why I believe the script must have missed them. > They should be > converted manually. > > OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe/GrantTable.c > OvmfPkg/XenPvBlkDxe/BlockFront.c > > Important: when you update the series, please do not > force-push your > current "Bug_1373_BsdPatentLicense" branch! Instead, > please push > "Bug_1373_BsdPatentLicense_v2". > > [...] > > > > 908d82c3fd ArmVirtPkg: Replace BSD License with > BSD+Patent License > > (3) The same commit message observations apply as under > (1). > > With those commit message updates, the ArmVirtPkg patch > (currently > commit 908d82c3fd in your branch) will be eligible for > my R-b. The > conversions done by the patch appear correct, no links > to > <http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php> > remain, and after the > patch, no file remains without "SPDX-License- > Identifier: > BSD-2-Clause-Patent". > > > I haven't done any build testing, partly because the > patches look safe, > and partly because any future updates (to OvmfPkg, > MdePkg, MdeModulePkg > etc) would invalidate such testing anyway. We should do > build testing > once all of the patches in the series have been > approved. (More > precisely, a DSC can be test-built if its own package, > and all the > packages it depends upon, have been reviewed.) > > Thank you! > Laszlo > _______________________________________________ > edk2-devel mailing list > edk2-devel@lists.01.org > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
