From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=217.140.101.70; helo=foss.arm.com; envelope-from=julien.grall@arm.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from foss.arm.com (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [217.140.101.70]) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3913B211D940A for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:42:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26953A78; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:42:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.196.50] (e108454-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.50]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 777623F59C; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:42:48 -0700 (PDT) To: Laszlo Ersek , Lars Kurth , "Kinney, Michael D" Cc: "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" , Ard Biesheuvel , Jordan Justen , Anthony Perard , =?UTF-8?Q?Marc-Andr=c3=a9_Lureau?= , Stefan Berger , Stefano Stabellini References: <6de07821-a05e-9446-7ef6-c178eaf2fdfb@arm.com> <8F40F2BF-B40F-4338-A832-70AE84B26408@citrix.com> <6FBC013D-4BC9-454C-9D4D-87C96F435704@citrix.com> <720E0EE9-2AED-4110-827D-B87DE5F52862@citrix.com> <2439277a-b103-50d4-4de2-f1d3e17c53a3@redhat.com> From: Julien Grall Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:42:47 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2439277a-b103-50d4-4de2-f1d3e17c53a3@redhat.com> Subject: Re: PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:42:51 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, On 20/03/2019 18:25, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 03/20/19 14:03, Lars Kurth wrote: >> On 15/03/2019, 17:48, "Lars Kurth" wrote: >> On 15/03/2019, 10:18, "Julien Grall" wrote: >> Is the issue that you don’t trust that the license specified in the files are correct? > > No -- the question is whether the license included in the files > mentioned is indeed the MIT license, suitable for a replacement with the > appropriate SPDX license ID. > >> >> > (2.2.2) Files that seem to be covered by the MIT license. >> > >> > OvmfPkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Xen/arch-arm/xen.h >> >> I can't identify where in the Xen tree this file came from. There is no corresponding xen.h file in the Xen tree at [xen.git] / xen / include / public / arch-arm / >> @Julien, @Anthony: can you clarify > > This file was first added to edk2 in b94c3ac93d57 ("Ovmf/Xen: implement > XenHypercallLib for ARM", 2015-02-28). It is a copy of public/arch-arm.h. Somehow all the other projects created the file under arch-arm/xen.h. > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/commit/b94c3ac93d57 > > And from the Xen project (I think), it was Reviewed-by: Stefano > Stabellini . (I vaguely recall that > Stefano's emai has changed since.) That's correct. He is working for Xilinx now. > >> >> > 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 >> >> These all appear to originate from [xen.git] / xen / include / public >> In the Xen tree these all have explicit MIT licenses, which implies that the license headers are indeed correct. > > Thanks -- so can we replace the license blocks with > > SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT > > ? (See e.g. .) I spoke with Lars today, this identifier would be suitable for the headers. Cheers, -- Julien Grall