Re: [edk2-platforms][PATCH 5/5] Platform/RPi: Set SD routing according to model

["Leif Lindholm" <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>]

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 16:33:28 +0000, Pete Batard wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Pete Batard <pete@akeo.ie>
> > > ---
> > >   Platform/RaspberryPi/Drivers/ConfigDxe/ConfigDxe.c | 137
> > > ++++++++++++++------
> > >   1 file changed, 96 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/Platform/RaspberryPi/Drivers/ConfigDxe/ConfigDxe.c
> > > b/Platform/RaspberryPi/Drivers/ConfigDxe/ConfigDxe.c
> > > index 98e58a560ed4..26bc92f28185 100644
> > > --- a/Platform/RaspberryPi/Drivers/ConfigDxe/ConfigDxe.c
> > > +++ b/Platform/RaspberryPi/Drivers/ConfigDxe/ConfigDxe.c
> > > @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
> > >   /** @file
> > >    *
> > > - *  Copyright (c) 2018, Andrei Warkentin <andrey.warkentin@gmail.com>
> > > + *  Copyright (c) 2019, ARM Limited. All rights reserved.
> > 
> > "All rights reserved."?
> 
> To be honest, that's something that's been bothering me too in this codebase
> (and some other ones too, where you get to see the same), since there are
> only so many rights one can reserve when the code is actually governed by
> the Open Source license being used, and therefore asserting that you reserve
> "all rights" seems to be in direct conflict with that.
> 
> However, I am not a lawyer, and this seems to be standard boilerplate being
> imposed by large companies. For instance, you'll find plenty of instances of
> it in the existing codebase. E.g.
> https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/ArmPkg/Include/AsmMacroIoLib.h
> has three separate entities that appear to state that each one holds all the
> rights to the source, which I can't help by find amusing.
>
> I guess we're supposed to understand that each entity reserves all rights to
> the code they've actually written (including the right to do something that
> might go against the license, since "All rights" > "Rights to the extent
> being granted by the BSD"), and that it's up to legal departments to sort up
> the mess, if mess there is...

Yeah, that mostly matches my interpretation.

My understanding is that there are certain paranoid interpretations
under which you *give away* rights to code you contribute to an open
source project - like the right to also publish/contribute the same
code under some other license.

I don't know if this stems from things like copyright assignment
agreements, which (for similar reasons) may explicitly grant back to
the contributor a bunch of rights to the contributed code, and various
corporate legal departments just blindly require it to be included
everywhere.

Phil: do a grep in linux, u-boot or qemu.
This is silly, but it's commonplace and non-controversial. 

/
    Leif

> Then again, while I think I can wrap my head against what copyright entails,
> I'm not sure I completely get what these additional "rights" are supposed to
> mean in this context (my current take being that we're supposed to be
> believe that there exists an implicit grandfathered license, which gives all
> rights to the parent company, and that governs a virtual version of the
> source code containing only the changes that the developer applied, and
> therefore that the BSD licensed version of the source that is then made
> public is meant to be seen as a derivative of this virtual "All rights
> reserved" incomplete source, hence granting a partial "All rights" for said
> source to the company, if that makes any sense), so it may be good for
> someone with better understanding of this to clarify, or point to a place
> where this might be explained.