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

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

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-
> bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Laszlo Ersek
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 3:56 AM
> To: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> Cc: Justen, Jordan L <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>; edk2-
> devel@lists.01.org; Julien Grall
> <julien.grall@arm.com>; Anthony Perard
> <anthony.perard@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