Re: [edk2-devel] License Check - was OvmfPkg: Adding support for bhyve as OvmfPkg/Bhyve

["Liming Gao" <liming.gao@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ard Biesheuvel
> Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 10:32 PM
> To: devel@edk2.groups.io; leif@nuviainc.com; Gao, Liming <liming.gao@intel.com>
> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; Rebecca Cran <rebecca@bsdio.com>; Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>; Justen, Jordan L
> <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] License Check - was OvmfPkg: Adding support for bhyve as OvmfPkg/Bhyve
> 
> On 7/2/20 4:13 PM, Leif Lindholm via groups.io wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 13:49:45 +0000, Gao, Liming wrote:
> >> Leif:
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Leif Lindholm
> >>> Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 6:54 PM
> >>> To: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> >>> Cc: Rebecca Cran <rebecca@bsdio.com>; edk2-devel-groups-io <devel@edk2.groups.io>; Ard Biesheuvel
> <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>;
> >>> Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>; Justen, Jordan L <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> >>> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] License Check - was OvmfPkg: Adding support for bhyve as OvmfPkg/Bhyve
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 11:27:25 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >>>> This likely comes from BaseTools commit a4cfb842fca9
> >>>> ("BaseTools/PatchCheck.py: Add LicenseCheck", 2020-06-12).
> >>>>
> >>>> One approach would be to remove "VbeShim.h" from the tracked files under
> >>>> OvmfPkg, replacing it with a PREBUILD command in the OVMF DSC files.
> >>>> (Then Bhyve could do the same.)
> >>>>
> >>>> However, the generator, namely "VbeShim.sh", is not written in Python,
> >>>> but in (POSIX) shell, and so it can't be called from PREBUILD (I think
> >>>> it would break OVMF builds on Windows).
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't know what to tell you, other than the blanket license
> >>>> enforcement from commit a4cfb842fca9 is likely wrong.
> >>>
> >>> *Reads patch*
> >>> *Figuratively spits coffee all over keyboard*
> >>>
> >>> No, this is not OK.
> >>>
> >>> We *STILL* have no agreed process for accepting non bsd+patent content
> >>> since we dropped the contribution agreement. I have tried to raise
> >>> this issue several times in the past, and there has never been any
> >>> outcome from resulting discussions.
> >>>
> >>> So now I'm going to send out a two-patch set consisting of:
> >>> - Reverting a4cfb842fca9. (Doing nothing is better than implying that
> >>>    anything !bsd+patent can currently be added to the tree.)
> >>> - Deleting the statement in ReadmMe.rst erroneously claiming that the
> >>>    includion of these other licenses are acceptable until such a point
> >>>    an active decision has been taken, approved by the community, that
> >>>    this is permitted.
> >>>
> >>
> >> If only bsd+patent is allowed, the checker can be enhanced to check this license only.
> >> I don't understand why remove this checker.
> >
> > Mainly because that was the easiest thing to do :)

People may miss it. So, the checker is helpful to detect the issue. 

> >
> > But also because:
> > - The thread that spawned this also raised the problem of
> >    machine-generated files.
This is a gap. We have no rule for the generated file. 

> > - I am somewhat unhappy the checker got merged in the first place
> >    without wider community feedback. BaseTools and its contents are
> >    used for many repositories (even within TianoCore), and this added
> >    unconditional check breaks the use for some of those.
> >
The patch to add the license checker is reviewed in edk2 mail list for several weeks. 
I don't get other comments. Can you give the suggestion on how to improve the communication in edk2 community? 

Besides, there is another new checker of ECC to check coding style for each patch. Can you give your comment?
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/61966

> 
> I think the fundamental problem is that contributing code under a
> contribution agreement that includes a patent grant is not the same as
> contributing it under a patent grant license, given that the latter can
> only be done by the author of the code, while the former could be done
> by anyone.
> 
> This means our current licensing policy is actually more restrictive
> that the old one, making it more difficult to incorporate 'second hand'
> code.
> 
> I don't think we can fix this with a patch though :-(

Yes. This checker is for current allowed license. It doesn't resolve this issue. 

Thanks
Liming
> 
>