Re: [Patch V4 0/6] Update to Tiano Contribution Agreement 1.1

["Kinney, Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>]

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:lersek@redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 6:08 AM
> To: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; edk2-
> devel@lists.01.org
> Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>; Andrew Fish
> <afish@apple.com>; Justen, Jordan L <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>
> 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