Re: [edk2-platforms][PATCH 5/5] Platform/RPi: Set SD routing according to model

["Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>]

On 11/27/19 6:04 PM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 16:33:28 +0000, Pete Batard wrote:
>>>> Signed-off-by: Pete Batard <pete@akeo.ie>
>>>> ---
>>>>    Platform/RaspberryPi/Drivers/ConfigDxe/ConfigDxe.c | 137
>>>> ++++++++++++++------
>>>>    1 file changed, 96 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Platform/RaspberryPi/Drivers/ConfigDxe/ConfigDxe.c
>>>> b/Platform/RaspberryPi/Drivers/ConfigDxe/ConfigDxe.c
>>>> index 98e58a560ed4..26bc92f28185 100644
>>>> --- a/Platform/RaspberryPi/Drivers/ConfigDxe/ConfigDxe.c
>>>> +++ b/Platform/RaspberryPi/Drivers/ConfigDxe/ConfigDxe.c
>>>> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
>>>>    /** @file
>>>>     *
>>>> - *  Copyright (c) 2018, Andrei Warkentin <andrey.warkentin@gmail.com>
>>>> + *  Copyright (c) 2019, ARM Limited. All rights reserved.
>>>
>>> "All rights reserved."?
>>
>> To be honest, that's something that's been bothering me too in this codebase
>> (and some other ones too, where you get to see the same), since there are
>> only so many rights one can reserve when the code is actually governed by
>> the Open Source license being used, and therefore asserting that you reserve
>> "all rights" seems to be in direct conflict with that.
>>
>> However, I am not a lawyer, and this seems to be standard boilerplate being
>> imposed by large companies. For instance, you'll find plenty of instances of
>> it in the existing codebase. E.g.
>> https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/ArmPkg/Include/AsmMacroIoLib.h
>> has three separate entities that appear to state that each one holds all the
>> rights to the source, which I can't help by find amusing.
>>
>> I guess we're supposed to understand that each entity reserves all rights to
>> the code they've actually written (including the right to do something that
>> might go against the license, since "All rights" > "Rights to the extent
>> being granted by the BSD"), and that it's up to legal departments to sort up
>> the mess, if mess there is...
> 
> Yeah, that mostly matches my interpretation.
> 
> My understanding is that there are certain paranoid interpretations
> under which you *give away* rights to code you contribute to an open
> source project - like the right to also publish/contribute the same
> code under some other license.
> 
> I don't know if this stems from things like copyright assignment
> agreements, which (for similar reasons) may explicitly grant back to
> the contributor a bunch of rights to the contributed code, and various
> corporate legal departments just blindly require it to be included
> everywhere.
> 
> Phil: do a grep in linux, u-boot or qemu.
> This is silly, but it's commonplace and non-controversial.

Sorry for keeping asking about licensing, I'm trying to understand 
better the situation / status quo, I also am not a lawyer.

Thanks both for your explanations :)

>> Then again, while I think I can wrap my head against what copyright entails,
>> I'm not sure I completely get what these additional "rights" are supposed to
>> mean in this context (my current take being that we're supposed to be
>> believe that there exists an implicit grandfathered license, which gives all
>> rights to the parent company, and that governs a virtual version of the
>> source code containing only the changes that the developer applied, and
>> therefore that the BSD licensed version of the source that is then made
>> public is meant to be seen as a derivative of this virtual "All rights
>> reserved" incomplete source, hence granting a partial "All rights" for said
>> source to the company, if that makes any sense), so it may be good for
>> someone with better understanding of this to clarify, or point to a place
>> where this might be explained.
>