Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 03/23/19 01:44, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> Hi Laszlo,
> 
> I have entered the following BZ for SPDX identifiers for 
> MIT licensed content in OvmfPkg. 
> 
> https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1654

Thank you!
Laszlo

>> -Original Message-
>> From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:ler...@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 5:10 AM
>> To: Lars Kurth ; Julien Grall
>> ; Kinney, Michael D
>> 
>> Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Ard Biesheuvel
>> ; Justen, Jordan L
>> ; Anthony Perard
>> ; Marc-André Lureau
>> ; Stefan Berger
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent
>> License
>>
>> On 03/15/19 18:48, Lars Kurth wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15/03/2019, 10:18, "Julien Grall"
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >  EDK2 is converting the full copyright in
>> each file to SDPX identifier. While the
>>> >  copyright looks like an MIT license, it has
>> never been confirmed. Andrew Cooper
>>> >  suggested you might be able to confirm.
>>> >
>>> > Is there a web-link to the files/repos such that
>> I don’t have to clone the repo
>>> > Lars
>>>
>>> Here an example of files from Xen public headers:
>>>
>>>
>> https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=tree;f=xen/in
>> clude/public;h=0618b0134d2b9babcba71a3f0f86be5a84468b50;h
>> b=HEAD
>>>
>>> OK, this makes this easy then. Because in all
>> likelihood, the files were copied from xen/include/public
>> and then the COPYING file
>> https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=blob;f=xen/in
>> clude/public/COPYING applies, which states that
>> everything in this directory is MIT, unless stated
>> otherwise in the file.
>>>
>>> So as long as someone confirms that the files in
>> OvmfPkg/Include came from xen/include/public, this is a
>> clear case of a MIT license
>>> If they are files from other directories in Xen, check
>> the COPYING file in the original directory (or if there
>> is none in the parent directory) and check the COPYING
>> file
>>>
>>> I am not so clear about where the files in XenBusDxe
>> came from, but the same principle applies.
>>>
>>> If someone groups these files by "original directory in
>> Xen" to File ... I am happy to do a final sanity check
>> and sign it off and/or deal with any unclear cases
>>
>> Replacing MIT license blocks with SPDX identifiers is
>> something we
>> should do later -- I think it's out of scope for Mike's
>> current patch
>> series, it's just something I noticed and pointed out for
>> the future,
>> while I was verifying the "license block -> SPDX ID"
>> replacements for
>> 2-BSDL (i.e., *not* MIT).
>>
>> Mike mentioned that he was going to file a number of
>> TianoCore BZs as a
>> result of the discussion in this thread. Mike, can you
>> please file one
>> for the MIT->SPDX "refactoring" (under OvmfPkg) as well?
>> If not, I can
>> file it myself later, I just wouldn't like us to end up
>> with duplicates.
>>
>> Once we have that separate BZ, we can discuss it in
>> isolation.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Laszlo

___
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License

[Kinney, Michael D]

Hi Laszlo,

I have entered the following BZ for SPDX identifiers for 
MIT licensed content in OvmfPkg. 

https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1654

Best regards,

Mike

> -Original Message-
> From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:ler...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 5:10 AM
> To: Lars Kurth ; Julien Grall
> ; Kinney, Michael D
> 
> Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Ard Biesheuvel
> ; Justen, Jordan L
> ; Anthony Perard
> ; Marc-André Lureau
> ; Stefan Berger
> 
> Subject: Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent
> License
> 
> On 03/15/19 18:48, Lars Kurth wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 15/03/2019, 10:18, "Julien Grall"
>  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >  EDK2 is converting the full copyright in
> each file to SDPX identifier. While the
> > >  copyright looks like an MIT license, it has
> never been confirmed. Andrew Cooper
> > >  suggested you might be able to confirm.
> > >
> > > Is there a web-link to the files/repos such that
> I don’t have to clone the repo
> > > Lars
> >
> > Here an example of files from Xen public headers:
> >
> >
> https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=tree;f=xen/in
> clude/public;h=0618b0134d2b9babcba71a3f0f86be5a84468b50;h
> b=HEAD
> >
> > OK, this makes this easy then. Because in all
> likelihood, the files were copied from xen/include/public
> and then the COPYING file
> https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=blob;f=xen/in
> clude/public/COPYING applies, which states that
> everything in this directory is MIT, unless stated
> otherwise in the file.
> >
> > So as long as someone confirms that the files in
> OvmfPkg/Include came from xen/include/public, this is a
> clear case of a MIT license
> > If they are files from other directories in Xen, check
> the COPYING file in the original directory (or if there
> is none in the parent directory) and check the COPYING
> file
> >
> > I am not so clear about where the files in XenBusDxe
> came from, but the same principle applies.
> >
> > If someone groups these files by "original directory in
> Xen" to File ... I am happy to do a final sanity check
> and sign it off and/or deal with any unclear cases
> 
> Replacing MIT license blocks with SPDX identifiers is
> something we
> should do later -- I think it's out of scope for Mike's
> current patch
> series, it's just something I noticed and pointed out for
> the future,
> while I was verifying the "license block -> SPDX ID"
> replacements for
> 2-BSDL (i.e., *not* MIT).
> 
> Mike mentioned that he was going to file a number of
> TianoCore BZs as a
> result of the discussion in this thread. Mike, can you
> please file one
> for the MIT->SPDX "refactoring" (under OvmfPkg) as well?
> If not, I can
> file it myself later, I just wouldn't like us to end up
> with duplicates.
> 
> Once we have that separate BZ, we can discuss it in
> isolation.
> 
> Thanks
> Laszlo
___
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 03/21/19 13:04, Lars Kurth wrote:
> 
> 
> On 20/03/2019, 18:25, "Laszlo Ersek"  wrote:
> 
> But, again, this should be discussed in that separate BZ then.
> 
> > >OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe/XenBus.c
> 
> This file is licensed under the BSD license, aka 
> https://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
> 
> > >OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe/XenStore.c
> > >OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe/XenStore.h
> >I do not know where these files come from. The files do not appear to 
> come from a Xen project repo. 
> 
> See commit a9090a94bb4a ("OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe: Add XenStore client
> implementation", 2014-10-29), by Anthony.
> 
> https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/commit/a9090a94bb4a
> 
> The commit message states,
> 
> >Origin: FreeBSD 10.0
> >License: This patch adds several files under the MIT licence.
> 
> >So, unless you trust that the license in the headers are correct, the 
> right thing would be to identify the source and check whether the license 
> text has been imported unmodified
> 
> We do trust that the license blocks, as they exist, are correct. Where
> we need help & support is the mapping/replacement of those verbose
> license blocks to/with SPDX-License-Identifier tags.
> 
> As I now understand what is needed, I had a look at the XenStore.* licenses. 
> They are NOT a standard MIT license
> 
> The sources say:
> "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy 
> of this source file (the "Software")"
> The MIT license says
> "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy 
> of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software")"
> 
> I would argue that replacing "source file" with "software and associated 
> documentation files" is probably OK, but I am not an expert. I am pretty sure 
> this type of issue has come up before when migrating to SPDX. It might be 
> worthwhile reaching out to someone from SPDX.
> 
> Hope this helped

Thank you! We'll revisit this issue (and thread, I assume) later on.

Laszlo
___
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 03/20/19 19:42, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 20/03/2019 18:25, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 03/20/19 14:03, Lars Kurth wrote:
>>> On 15/03/2019, 17:48, "Lars Kurth"  wrote:
>>>  On 15/03/2019, 10:18, "Julien Grall"  wrote:
>>> Is the issue that you don’t trust that the license specified in the
>>> files are correct?
>>
>> No -- the question is whether the license included in the files
>> mentioned is indeed the MIT license, suitable for a replacement with the
>> appropriate SPDX license ID.
>>
>>>
>>>  > (2.2.2) Files that seem to be covered by the MIT license.
>>>  >
>>>  >    OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/arch-arm/xen.h
>>>
>>> I can't identify where in the Xen tree this file came from. There is
>>> no corresponding xen.h file in the Xen tree at [xen.git] / xen /
>>> include / public / arch-arm /
>>> @Julien, @Anthony: can you clarify
>>
>> This file was first added to edk2 in b94c3ac93d57 ("Ovmf/Xen: implement
>> XenHypercallLib for ARM", 2015-02-28).
> 
> It is a copy of public/arch-arm.h. Somehow all the other projects
> created the file under arch-arm/xen.h.
> 
>>
>> https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/commit/b94c3ac93d57
>>
>> And from the Xen project (I think), it was Reviewed-by: Stefano
>> Stabellini . (I vaguely recall that
>> Stefano's emai has changed since.)
> 
> That's correct. He is working for Xilinx now.
> 
>>
>>>
>>>  >   
>>> 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
>>>
>>> These all appear to originate from [xen.git] / xen / include / public
>>> In the Xen tree these all have explicit MIT licenses, which implies
>>> that the license headers are indeed correct.
>>
>> Thanks -- so can we replace the license blocks with
>>
>>    SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
>>
>> ? (See e.g. .)
> 
> I spoke with Lars today, this identifier would be suitable for the headers.
> 
> Cheers,
> 

Thanks!
Laszlo
___
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License

[Julien Grall]

Hi,

On 20/03/2019 18:25, Laszlo Ersek wrote:

On 03/20/19 14:03, Lars Kurth wrote:

On 15/03/2019, 17:48, "Lars Kurth"  wrote:
 On 15/03/2019, 10:18, "Julien Grall"  wrote:
Is the issue that you don’t trust that the license specified in the files are 
correct?


No -- the question is whether the license included in the files
mentioned is indeed the MIT license, suitable for a replacement with the
appropriate SPDX license ID.



 > (2.2.2) Files that seem to be covered by the MIT license.
 >
 >OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/arch-arm/xen.h

I can't identify where in the Xen tree this file came from. There is no 
corresponding xen.h file in the Xen tree at [xen.git] / xen / include / public 
/ arch-arm /
@Julien, @Anthony: can you clarify


This file was first added to edk2 in b94c3ac93d57 ("Ovmf/Xen: implement
XenHypercallLib for ARM", 2015-02-28).


It is a copy of public/arch-arm.h. Somehow all the other projects created the 
file under arch-arm/xen.h.




https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/commit/b94c3ac93d57

And from the Xen project (I think), it was Reviewed-by: Stefano
Stabellini . (I vaguely recall that
Stefano's emai has changed since.)


That's correct. He is working for Xilinx now.





 >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

These all appear to originate from [xen.git] / xen / include / public
In the Xen tree these all have explicit MIT licenses, which implies that the 
license headers are indeed correct.


Thanks -- so can we replace the license blocks with

   SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT

? (See e.g. .)


I spoke with Lars today, this identifier would be suitable for the headers.

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall
___
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 03/20/19 14:03, Lars Kurth wrote:
> 
> 
> On 15/03/2019, 17:48, "Lars Kurth"  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 15/03/2019, 10:18, "Julien Grall"  wrote:
> 
> >  
> >  EDK2 is converting the full copyright in each file to SDPX 
> identifier. While the
> >  copyright looks like an MIT license, it has never been 
> confirmed. Andrew Cooper
> >  suggested you might be able to confirm.
> >  
> > Is there a web-link to the files/repos such that I don’t have to 
> clone the repo
> > Lars
> 
> Here an example of files from Xen public headers:
> 
> 
> https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=tree;f=xen/include/public;h=0618b0134d2b9babcba71a3f0f86be5a84468b50;hb=HEAD
> 
> OK, this makes this easy then. Because in all likelihood, the files were 
> copied from xen/include/public and then the COPYING file 
> https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=blob;f=xen/include/public/COPYING 
> applies, which states that everything in this directory is MIT, unless stated 
> otherwise in the file. 
> 
> So as long as someone confirms that the files in OvmfPkg/Include came 
> from xen/include/public, this is a clear case of a MIT license
> If they are files from other directories in Xen, check the COPYING file 
> in the original directory (or if there is none in the parent directory) and 
> check the COPYING file
> 
> I am not so clear about where the files in XenBusDxe came from, but the 
> same principle applies. 
> 
> If someone groups these files by "original directory in Xen" to File ... 
> I am happy to do a final sanity check and sign it off and/or deal with any 
> unclear cases
> 
> Nobody stepped up, sigh.

Sorry, no capacity. I suggested to handle this in a separate TianoCore
BZ, with much more focused context. I asked Mike to file that BZ (he had
offered earlier, if I understood correctly), or else to notify me to
file it.

> I am also VERY confused by this thread. 

Not surprising -- this is a side topic in the thread we're in.

> Is the issue that you don’t trust that the license specified in the files are 
> correct?

No -- the question is whether the license included in the files
mentioned is indeed the MIT license, suitable for a replacement with the
appropriate SPDX license ID.

> 
> > (2.2.2) Files that seem to be covered by the MIT license.
> > 
> >OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/arch-arm/xen.h
> 
> I can't identify where in the Xen tree this file came from. There is no 
> corresponding xen.h file in the Xen tree at [xen.git] / xen / include / 
> public / arch-arm /
> @Julien, @Anthony: can you clarify

This file was first added to edk2 in b94c3ac93d57 ("Ovmf/Xen: implement
XenHypercallLib for ARM", 2015-02-28).

https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/commit/b94c3ac93d57

And from the Xen project (I think), it was Reviewed-by: Stefano
Stabellini . (I vaguely recall that
Stefano's emai has changed since.)

> 
> >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
> 
> These all appear to originate from [xen.git] / xen / include / public
> In the Xen tree these all have explicit MIT licenses, which implies that the 
> license headers are indeed correct.

Thanks -- so can we replace the license blocks with

  SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT

? (See e.g. .)

But, again, this should be discussed in that separate BZ then.

> 
> >OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe/XenBus.c
> >OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe/XenStore.c
> >OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe/XenStore.h
> 
> I do not know where these files come from. The files do not appear to come 
> from a Xen project repo. 

See commit a9090a94bb4a ("OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe: Add XenStore client
implementation", 2014-10-29), by Anthony.

https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/commit/a9090a94bb4a

The commit message states,

> 

Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 03/15/19 18:48, Lars Kurth wrote:
> 
> 
> On 15/03/2019, 10:18, "Julien Grall"  wrote:
> 
> >  
> >  EDK2 is converting the full copyright in each file to SDPX 
> identifier. While the
> >  copyright looks like an MIT license, it has never been confirmed. 
> Andrew Cooper
> >  suggested you might be able to confirm.
> >  
> > Is there a web-link to the files/repos such that I don’t have to clone 
> the repo
> > Lars
> 
> Here an example of files from Xen public headers:
> 
> 
> https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=tree;f=xen/include/public;h=0618b0134d2b9babcba71a3f0f86be5a84468b50;hb=HEAD
> 
> OK, this makes this easy then. Because in all likelihood, the files were 
> copied from xen/include/public and then the COPYING file 
> https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=blob;f=xen/include/public/COPYING 
> applies, which states that everything in this directory is MIT, unless stated 
> otherwise in the file. 
> 
> So as long as someone confirms that the files in OvmfPkg/Include came from 
> xen/include/public, this is a clear case of a MIT license
> If they are files from other directories in Xen, check the COPYING file in 
> the original directory (or if there is none in the parent directory) and 
> check the COPYING file
> 
> I am not so clear about where the files in XenBusDxe came from, but the same 
> principle applies. 
> 
> If someone groups these files by "original directory in Xen" to File ... I am 
> happy to do a final sanity check and sign it off and/or deal with any unclear 
> cases

Replacing MIT license blocks with SPDX identifiers is something we
should do later -- I think it's out of scope for Mike's current patch
series, it's just something I noticed and pointed out for the future,
while I was verifying the "license block -> SPDX ID" replacements for
2-BSDL (i.e., *not* MIT).

Mike mentioned that he was going to file a number of TianoCore BZs as a
result of the discussion in this thread. Mike, can you please file one
for the MIT->SPDX "refactoring" (under OvmfPkg) as well? If not, I can
file it myself later, I just wouldn't like us to end up with duplicates.

Once we have that separate BZ, we can discuss it in isolation.

Thanks
Laszlo
___
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License

[Leif Lindholm]

A starting proposal for my end would be:

---
In order to keep track of who did what, all patches contributed need
to include a statement that to the best of the contributor's
knowledge they have the right to contribute it under the specified
license.

The test for this is as specified in the [Developer's Certificate of
Origin (DCO) 1.1](https://developercertificate.org/). The contributor
certifies compliance by adding a line saying

  Signed-off-by: Developer Name 

where "Developer Name" is the contributor's real name, and the email
address is one the developer is reachable through at the time of
contributing.
---

We could also do what Linux does and include the DCO v1.1 verbatim in
the Readme.md instead of using the link.

Best Regards,

Leif

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 07:09:41PM +, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> Leif and Jordan,
> 
> Would you mind putting together a specific proposal
> and perhaps some links to other projects that use
> the same approach?
> 
> I am happy to update the RFC to V3 to address this 
> topic if we can close on it quickly.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Leif Lindholm [mailto:leif.lindh...@linaro.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 10:59 AM
> > To: Kinney, Michael D 
> > Cc: Justen, Jordan L ; edk2-
> > de...@lists.01.org
> > Subject: Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent
> > License
> > 
> > Hi Mike,
> > 
> > I see where Jordan is coming from here.
> > 
> > It isn't just about losing the comment in
> > Contriutions.txt - there are
> > bits in the actual TianoCore Contribution Agreement that
> > cover the
> > same things as https://developercertificate.org/ (that
> > are not
> > explicitly called out elsewhere in the existing
> > Contributions.txt).
> > 
> > Like Jordan says, we wouldn't be the first project that
> > use
> > Signed-off-by without specifying exactly what it means,
> > but I think
> > we're one of the ones that actually care quite a bit.
> > 
> > I could live with us not resolving this at the same time
> > as the
> > license change, but I would prefer if we did...
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > 
> > Leif
> > 
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 06:25:54PM +, Kinney, Michael
> > D wrote:
> > > Hi Jordan,
> > >
> > > No proposed changes to the Signed-off-by tags.  If you
> > have
> > > a proposal, please provide an RFC or bring to the
> > monthly
> > > EDK II community meeting.
> > >
> > > This series is focused on the license change, the use
> > of SPDX
> > > identifiers, and removing the Contributed-under tag
> > from
> > > commit messages.
> > >
> > > I will update the V2 version of the patch series in to
> > make
> > > sure the content from Contributions.txt that is not
> > part of
> > > the TianoCore Contribution Agreement is added to
> > Readme.md.
> > >
> > > The RFC mentioned the need to update documentation.  I
> > will
> > > send that out as a separate Wiki patch series for
> > review.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Justen, Jordan L
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 11:04 AM
> > > > To: Kinney, Michael D ;
> > > > edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to
> > BSD+Patent
> > > > License
> > > >
> > > > On 2019-03-13 10:54:22, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 84141eacac edk2: Remove Contributions.txt and
> > update
> > > > Readme.md
> > > >
> > > > I guess this removes the requirement for the
> > > > 'Contributed-under' tag
> > > > in commit messages?
> > > >
> > > > But, what about Signed-off-by? Is it desirable to
> > > > remove that
> > > > requirement?
> > > >
> > > > Relatedly, some open source projects have
> > standardized
> > > > on tying the
> > > > Signed-off-by to this text:
> > > >
> > > > https://developercertificate.org/
> > > >
> > > > So, the contributor doesn't have to agree to give the
> > > > project the
> > > > contribution under the Contributed-under terms, but
> > > > they still
> > > > indicate that they believe that the project can use
> > the
> >

Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License

[Jordan Justen]

On 2019-03-19 12:09:41, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> Leif and Jordan,
> 
> Would you mind putting together a specific proposal

I would propose adding the exact text from that site into a
DeveloperCertificate.txt in the root of the tree. Then reference when
documenting how to contribute a patch, near the Signed-off-by part.

Optionally, the https://developercertificate.org/ site could be
referenced to show where the text came from.

> and perhaps some links to other projects that use
> the same approach?

* linux kernel [1] (where DCO started)

* eclipse [2]

-Jordan

[1]: 
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v5.1-rc1#n431

[2]: https://www.eclipse.org/legal/DCO.php
___
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License

[Kinney, Michael D]

Leif and Jordan,

Would you mind putting together a specific proposal
and perhaps some links to other projects that use
the same approach?

I am happy to update the RFC to V3 to address this 
topic if we can close on it quickly.

Thanks,

Mike


> -Original Message-
> From: Leif Lindholm [mailto:leif.lindh...@linaro.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 10:59 AM
> To: Kinney, Michael D 
> Cc: Justen, Jordan L ; edk2-
> de...@lists.01.org
> Subject: Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent
> License
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> I see where Jordan is coming from here.
> 
> It isn't just about losing the comment in
> Contriutions.txt - there are
> bits in the actual TianoCore Contribution Agreement that
> cover the
> same things as https://developercertificate.org/ (that
> are not
> explicitly called out elsewhere in the existing
> Contributions.txt).
> 
> Like Jordan says, we wouldn't be the first project that
> use
> Signed-off-by without specifying exactly what it means,
> but I think
> we're one of the ones that actually care quite a bit.
> 
> I could live with us not resolving this at the same time
> as the
> license change, but I would prefer if we did...
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Leif
> 
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 06:25:54PM +, Kinney, Michael
> D wrote:
> > Hi Jordan,
> >
> > No proposed changes to the Signed-off-by tags.  If you
> have
> > a proposal, please provide an RFC or bring to the
> monthly
> > EDK II community meeting.
> >
> > This series is focused on the license change, the use
> of SPDX
> > identifiers, and removing the Contributed-under tag
> from
> > commit messages.
> >
> > I will update the V2 version of the patch series in to
> make
> > sure the content from Contributions.txt that is not
> part of
> > the TianoCore Contribution Agreement is added to
> Readme.md.
> >
> > The RFC mentioned the need to update documentation.  I
> will
> > send that out as a separate Wiki patch series for
> review.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Justen, Jordan L
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 11:04 AM
> > > To: Kinney, Michael D ;
> > > edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > > Subject: Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to
> BSD+Patent
> > > License
> > >
> > > On 2019-03-13 10:54:22, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 84141eacac edk2: Remove Contributions.txt and
> update
> > > Readme.md
> > >
> > > I guess this removes the requirement for the
> > > 'Contributed-under' tag
> > > in commit messages?
> > >
> > > But, what about Signed-off-by? Is it desirable to
> > > remove that
> > > requirement?
> > >
> > > Relatedly, some open source projects have
> standardized
> > > on tying the
> > > Signed-off-by to this text:
> > >
> > > https://developercertificate.org/
> > >
> > > So, the contributor doesn't have to agree to give the
> > > project the
> > > contribution under the Contributed-under terms, but
> > > they still
> > > indicate that they believe that the project can use
> the
> > > code under the
> > > project's indicated license.
> > >
> > > There is also other information in Contributions.txt
> > > that appears to
> > > have been deleted, rather than moved. I guess it is
> > > mostly duplicated
> > > on the wiki. That doesn't mean it's not a good idea
> to
> > > duplicate it in
> > > the source tree, or at least provide a web-link. It
> > > seems like the
> > > first place devs might look for such information is
> > > either the readme,
> > > or Contributions.txt.
> > >
> > > Regarding the wiki, I guess it has to be updated
> after
> > > this change is
> > > made. It might be good to add that to the bug so it
> > > can't be closed
> > > until that is fixed.
> > >
> > > How about updating BaseTools/Scripts/PatchCheck.py?
> > >
> > > -Jordan
> > ___
> > 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

Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License

[Leif Lindholm]

Hi Mike,

I see where Jordan is coming from here.

It isn't just about losing the comment in Contriutions.txt - there are
bits in the actual TianoCore Contribution Agreement that cover the
same things as https://developercertificate.org/ (that are not
explicitly called out elsewhere in the existing Contributions.txt).

Like Jordan says, we wouldn't be the first project that use
Signed-off-by without specifying exactly what it means, but I think
we're one of the ones that actually care quite a bit.

I could live with us not resolving this at the same time as the
license change, but I would prefer if we did...

Best Regards,

Leif

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 06:25:54PM +, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> Hi Jordan,
> 
> No proposed changes to the Signed-off-by tags.  If you have 
> a proposal, please provide an RFC or bring to the monthly
> EDK II community meeting.
> 
> This series is focused on the license change, the use of SPDX
> identifiers, and removing the Contributed-under tag from
> commit messages.
> 
> I will update the V2 version of the patch series in to make
> sure the content from Contributions.txt that is not part of
> the TianoCore Contribution Agreement is added to Readme.md.
> 
> The RFC mentioned the need to update documentation.  I will
> send that out as a separate Wiki patch series for review.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Mike
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Justen, Jordan L
> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 11:04 AM
> > To: Kinney, Michael D ;
> > edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > Subject: Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent
> > License
> > 
> > On 2019-03-13 10:54:22, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> > >
> > > 84141eacac edk2: Remove Contributions.txt and update
> > Readme.md
> > 
> > I guess this removes the requirement for the
> > 'Contributed-under' tag
> > in commit messages?
> > 
> > But, what about Signed-off-by? Is it desirable to
> > remove that
> > requirement?
> > 
> > Relatedly, some open source projects have standardized
> > on tying the
> > Signed-off-by to this text:
> > 
> > https://developercertificate.org/
> > 
> > So, the contributor doesn't have to agree to give the
> > project the
> > contribution under the Contributed-under terms, but
> > they still
> > indicate that they believe that the project can use the
> > code under the
> > project's indicated license.
> > 
> > There is also other information in Contributions.txt
> > that appears to
> > have been deleted, rather than moved. I guess it is
> > mostly duplicated
> > on the wiki. That doesn't mean it's not a good idea to
> > duplicate it in
> > the source tree, or at least provide a web-link. It
> > seems like the
> > first place devs might look for such information is
> > either the readme,
> > or Contributions.txt.
> > 
> > Regarding the wiki, I guess it has to be updated after
> > this change is
> > made. It might be good to add that to the bug so it
> > can't be closed
> > until that is fixed.
> > 
> > How about updating BaseTools/Scripts/PatchCheck.py?
> > 
> > -Jordan
> ___
> 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

Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License

[Jordan Justen]

On 2019-03-18 11:25:54, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> Hi Jordan,
> 
> No proposed changes to the Signed-off-by tags.

I think it's good to continue with the Signed-off-by tags. One slight
concerns I have is what Signed-off-by becomes a little vague with your
proposed change.

Previously it meant that the contribution aligned with the Tianocore
Contribution Agreement. Now, I think it *implicitly* means what the
"Developer Certificate of Origin" https://developercertificate.org/
says, but it's not made explicit.

I guess it might be fine to proceed with the implicit meaning for
Signed-off-by, and EDK II wouldn't be the first project to be in that
situation.

> If you have 
> a proposal, please provide an RFC or bring to the monthly
> EDK II community meeting.
> 
> This series is focused on the license change, the use of SPDX
> identifiers, and removing the Contributed-under tag from
> commit messages.

One possible advantage for considering this now is that I'm guessing
the change is being reviewed by various legal departments, and it
might be easier to handle this change at the same time.

One possible disadvantage is that it might make this change more
difficult to finish. :)

-Jordan
___
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License

[Kinney, Michael D]

Hi Jordan,

No proposed changes to the Signed-off-by tags.  If you have 
a proposal, please provide an RFC or bring to the monthly
EDK II community meeting.

This series is focused on the license change, the use of SPDX
identifiers, and removing the Contributed-under tag from
commit messages.

I will update the V2 version of the patch series in to make
sure the content from Contributions.txt that is not part of
the TianoCore Contribution Agreement is added to Readme.md.

The RFC mentioned the need to update documentation.  I will
send that out as a separate Wiki patch series for review.

Best regards,

Mike

> -Original Message-
> From: Justen, Jordan L
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 11:04 AM
> To: Kinney, Michael D ;
> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Subject: Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent
> License
> 
> On 2019-03-13 10:54:22, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> >
> > 84141eacac edk2: Remove Contributions.txt and update
> Readme.md
> 
> I guess this removes the requirement for the
> 'Contributed-under' tag
> in commit messages?
> 
> But, what about Signed-off-by? Is it desirable to
> remove that
> requirement?
> 
> Relatedly, some open source projects have standardized
> on tying the
> Signed-off-by to this text:
> 
> https://developercertificate.org/
> 
> So, the contributor doesn't have to agree to give the
> project the
> contribution under the Contributed-under terms, but
> they still
> indicate that they believe that the project can use the
> code under the
> project's indicated license.
> 
> There is also other information in Contributions.txt
> that appears to
> have been deleted, rather than moved. I guess it is
> mostly duplicated
> on the wiki. That doesn't mean it's not a good idea to
> duplicate it in
> the source tree, or at least provide a web-link. It
> seems like the
> first place devs might look for such information is
> either the readme,
> or Contributions.txt.
> 
> Regarding the wiki, I guess it has to be updated after
> this change is
> made. It might be good to add that to the bug so it
> can't be closed
> until that is fixed.
> 
> How about updating BaseTools/Scripts/PatchCheck.py?
> 
> -Jordan
___
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License

[Kinney, Michael D]

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 
> Cc: Justen, Jordan L ; edk2-
> de...@lists.01.org; Julien Grall
> ; Anthony Perard
> 
> 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
>  

Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License

[Julien Grall]

Hi Lars,

On 15/03/2019 17:04, Lars Kurth wrote:



On 15/03/2019, 02:35, "Julien Grall"  wrote:

 Hi Lars,
 
 On 14/03/2019 20:04, Lars Kurth wrote:

 >
 >
 > On 14/03/2019, 12:07, "Julien Grall"  wrote:
 >
 >  (+ Lars)
 >
 >  On 3/14/19 10:55 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
 >  > On 03/13/19 18:54, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
 >  > (2.2.2) Files that seem to be covered by the MIT license.
 >  >
 >  >OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/arch-arm/xen.h
 > ...
 >  >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.
 >
 >  I have added Lars Kurth to confirm the license.
 >
 > Can you give me some context? It's not clear to me what you expect me to 
do.
 
 EDK2 is converting the full copyright in each file to SDPX identifier. While the

 copyright looks like an MIT license, it has never been confirmed. Andrew 
Cooper
 suggested you might be able to confirm.
 
Is there a web-link to the files/repos such that I don’t have to clone the repo

Lars


Here an example of files from Xen public headers:

https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=tree;f=xen/include/public;h=0618b0134d2b9babcba71a3f0f86be5a84468b50;hb=HEAD

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall
___
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License

[Julien Grall]

Hi Lars,

On 14/03/2019 20:04, Lars Kurth wrote:



On 14/03/2019, 12:07, "Julien Grall"  wrote:

 (+ Lars)
 
 On 3/14/19 10:55 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:

 > On 03/13/19 18:54, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
 > (2.2.2) Files that seem to be covered by the MIT license.
 >
 >OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/arch-arm/xen.h
...
 >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.
 
 I have added Lars Kurth to confirm the license.


Can you give me some context? It's not clear to me what you expect me to do.


EDK2 is converting the full copyright in each file to SDPX identifier. While the 
copyright looks like an MIT license, it has never been confirmed. Andrew Cooper 
suggested you might be able to confirm.


Cheers,

--
Julien Grall
___
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License

[Julien Grall]

(+ Lars)

On 3/14/19 10:55 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:

On 03/13/19 18:54, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
(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.


I have added Lars Kurth to confirm the license.



(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  -- which is
 why I believe the script must have missed them. They should be
 converted manually.

   OvmfPkg/XenBusDxe/GrantTable.c
   OvmfPkg/XenPvBlkDxe/BlockFront.c


That's correct, they are licensed under 2-clause BSD.

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall
___
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License

[Jordan Justen]

On 2019-03-13 10:54:22, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
>  
> 84141eacac edk2: Remove Contributions.txt and update Readme.md

I guess this removes the requirement for the 'Contributed-under' tag
in commit messages?

But, what about Signed-off-by? Is it desirable to remove that
requirement?

Relatedly, some open source projects have standardized on tying the
Signed-off-by to this text:

https://developercertificate.org/

So, the contributor doesn't have to agree to give the project the
contribution under the Contributed-under terms, but they still
indicate that they believe that the project can use the code under the
project's indicated license.

There is also other information in Contributions.txt that appears to
have been deleted, rather than moved. I guess it is mostly duplicated
on the wiki. That doesn't mean it's not a good idea to duplicate it in
the source tree, or at least provide a web-link. It seems like the
first place devs might look for such information is either the readme,
or Contributions.txt.

Regarding the wiki, I guess it has to be updated after this change is
made. It might be good to add that to the bug so it can't be closed
until that is fixed.

How about updating BaseTools/Scripts/PatchCheck.py?

-Jordan
___
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License

[Laszlo Ersek]

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_BsdPatentLicense
>
> The commits in patch series can be viewed here:
>
>   https://github.com/mdkinney/edk2/commits/Bug_1373_BsdPatentLicense
>
> 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, 

[edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License

[Kinney, Michael D]

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_BsdPatentLicense

The commits in patch series can be viewed here:

  https://github.com/mdkinney/edk2/commits/Bug_1373_BsdPatentLicense

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.
 
84141eacac edk2: Remove Contributions.txt and update Readme.md
93b121ee79 StdLibPrivateInternalFiles: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent 
License
91a1d41ccb StdLib: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
a71c378242 AppPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
4eb2592e65 Vlv2TbltDevicePkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
7b719f9c0a Vlv2DeviceRefCodePkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
1472567223 UefiCpuPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
3001241ef7 StandaloneMmPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
e5dddf6e52 SourceLevelDebugPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
e83800c47a SignedCapsulePkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
3a58ac55fd ShellPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
b16c29f4d9 ShellBinPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
bf4838b342 SecurityPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
2da66fa9f1 QuarkSocPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
f52f862821 QuarkPlatformPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
571f6e2af1 PcAtChipsetPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
837a3425bf OvmfPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
d548789dff OptionRomPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
88cbe4e446 Omap35xxPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
452a4e54da Nt32Pkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
41704de255 NetworkPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
07716613d3 MdePkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
bfd7b0e6aa MdeModulePkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
9d991b5dff IntelSiliconPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
6c2833f076 IntelFspWrapperPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
c679ff1058 IntelFspPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
8623e16830 IntelFsp2WrapperPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
40e4b295f8 IntelFsp2Pkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
36ea637247 IntelFrameworkPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
0c6f14fb2f IntelFrameworkModulePkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
79ea5a27b9 FmpDevicePkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
a8e09bbdac FatPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
81322a8327 EmulatorPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
88e68e0fbc EmbeddedPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
c3176994e5 EdkCompatibilityPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
06bca42822 DynamicTablesPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
5bdb990eb2 CryptoPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
40472d5724 CorebootPayloadPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
a87f66c6a6 CorebootModulePkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
18a480540a BeagleBoardPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
908d82c3fd ArmVirtPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
4eb0a6b673 ArmPlatformPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
a376999cfd ArmPkg: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
20b76852bb BaseTools: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
15cfa51d6f edk2: Replace BSD License with BSD+Patent License
75c4e96f35 edk2: Change License.txt from 2-Clause BSD to BSD+Patent
1daf0f13e1 edk2: Add License-History.txt