Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] BaseTools/PatchCheck.py: Add LicenseCheck

["Leif Lindholm" <leif@nuviainc.com>]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 18:13:58 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 04/22/20 18:01, Liming Gao wrote:
> > Mike:
> >   The checker purpose is to make sure the correct license be used for new added file. If the file has the different license, it should be reviewed carefully. 
> >   
> >   I remember we still have one open for third party non bsd+patent
> >   code (the detail can refer to
> >   https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/41639). Now, there is no
> >   non bsd+patent license files to be added in edk2 after edk2
> >   switches to bsd+patent license.
> 
> Some files introduced by Rebecca's BhyvePkg patch series come under the
> 2-clause BSD License, and not the 2-clause BSD + Patent License. And
> Rebecca cannot relicense them because she's not the (sole) copyright holder.

I disagree.
BSD+Patent is a pure superset of BSD - this was the logic by which the
whole EDK2 project was relicensed in the first place. Rebecca can
definitely add the explicit patent grant as part of the contribution.

The explicit patent grant of course affects only the contributor, and
users of the contributed code, not the original source (and the
originating project would not be able to take modifications back
without accepting the amended license).

> Readme.md states:
> 
> 4. It is preferred that contributions are submitted using the same
>    copyright license as the base project. When that is not possible,
>    then contributions using the following licenses can be accepted:
>    * BSD (2-clause): http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause
>    * BSD (3-clause): http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
>    * MIT: http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
>    * Python-2.0: http://opensource.org/licenses/Python-2.0
>    * Zlib: http://opensource.org/licenses/Zlib
> [...]
>    Contributions using other licenses might be accepted, but further
>    review will be required.
> 
> This seems to imply that the "normal" 2-clause BSDL does not require
> "further review".

And I still hold the opinion that I held when I posted the message
referenced above - we do not today have any real policy here.

Now, as per my comment above, I don't think that applies in this
situation, but it is still somethihg we must resolve (i.e. take an
active decision about) before we accept any non BSD+Patent content
into any of our BSD+Patent trees.

/
    Leif