Hi,
I would like to participate in Google Summer of Code 2015 with coreboot to
work on one of the following ideas:
- Enable coreboot + Tianocore over an ARM board: The Ideas page mentions
something similar [1], but I think the hardware details are to be finalized. I
worked on adding BeagleBone Black support to Tianocore during GSoC-2014 with
Linaro, and so have some experience with JTAG, ARM bringup and bootloaders.
Which mainboard would be the intended target? I have a HiKey board (…
[View More]HiSilicon
Kirin 6220 Cortex-A53 ARM64) [2] which could be used - I'm checking if
coreboot already supports a similar SoC to base the port on.
- Eliminate Video BIOS requirement for AMD/ATI graphics init: I understand
this would involve dumping AtomBIOS ROM and performing those initializations
under coreboot. I came across atomdis [3] and am looking for a Video BIOS ROM
I could try disassembling. I need some input on how I could go about the
implementation of this idea - what hardware would be suitable / what the boot
flow would be. Although I haven't worked with the Linux graphics stack yet, I
would like to get my hands dirty. I am currently looking through the resources
at [4].
I recently tried running coreboot + SeaBIOS + SYSLINUX under QEMU (as
suggested on the Easy tasks page [5]), and it seems to work alright - but is
it possible to find a SYSLINUX ELF image so I can eliminate SeaBIOS?
I would be glad to have your suggestions on how I could get started.
[1] http://www.coreboot.org/Project_Ideas#coreboot_ARM_SoC.27s_mainboard_port
[2] https://www.96boards.org/products/hikey/
[3]
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_atombios_dumper&num=1
[4] http://www.coreboot.org/Project_Ideas#Native_graphics_init
[5] http://www.coreboot.org/Easy_projects#Add.2Ftest_new_supported_payloads
Thanks,
Varad
[View Less]
> Section 1 of the GPLv2 contains: "keep intact all the notices that refer
to this License".
Yes, but that only applies to verbatim copies. Section 2 explicitly allows
you to distribute modified versions (and isn't incorporation into a larger
code body always a modification?) as long as the whole is licensed under
the terms of the GPL. The GPLv3 is much clearer on this, saying 'The work
must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under this License
[...]. This requirement …
[View More]modifies the requirement in section 4 [the
equivalent to section 1 in v2] to “keep intact all notices”.' about
modified works. Unfortunately we are using v2, but I'm assuming this is
just a clarification of the same terms.
I mean, just from a common sense perspective (although I know we are
dealing with legal issues...), we all agree that it's okay to copy a single
function from one GPL file to another without copying the whole license
header, right (because we're doing that all the time)? So where is the
difference between that and making a new file with your own (GPL-compliant)
header and copying every function from another file into there? The
copyright is still owned by the original author, but the license he grants
you for using that code allows you to reuse and modify it however you like,
including removing his original copyright notice (as long as you still
adhere to the general attribution and licensing requirements of the GPL).
(FWIW I think we should keep lines of the form "Copyright <year> <author>"
intact anyway, but just as a courtesy, not because we're legally obligated.
An the big blob with the FSF street address below can definitely be
changed.)
[View Less]
2015-03-04 18:32 GMT+01:00 ron minnich <rminnich(a)gmail.com>:
> Peter, per Patrick's note here, and discussions I've had with people who
> actually are real lawyers, who earn their money doing IP licensing, I think
> you are quite wrong. We should not change the license text in the files
> *unless it is done in consultation with the copyright holders*.
There are things we can do, before "perfect" kills "good" again:
Decide how we want it done in the future, and formalize that
…
[View More]somewhere. Then let existing copyright holders decide if they want to
go for the new format (they're easy to find: they're listed right in
the headers we're debating), and let them do it (they are allowed to,
after all).
Patrick
--
Google Germany GmbH
ABC-Str. 19
20354 Hamburg
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores
[View Less]
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 6:10 AM Patrick Georgi via coreboot <
coreboot(a)coreboot.org> wrote:
> 2015-03-04 14:58 GMT+01:00 Peter Stuge <peter(a)stuge.se>:
> > I haven't gotten the impression that anyone is suggesting to remove
> > or even change any copyright notices.
> >
> > Copyright documents authorship (like git does too) but says nothing
> > about licensing terms.
> Section 1 of the GPLv2 contains: "keep intact all the notices that
> refer …
[View More]to this License".
> I'm not a lawyer or I'd have more interesting things to do than to
> argue on mailing lists, but that doesn't look quite as clear cut to
> me.
>
>
Peter, per Patrick's note here, and discussions I've had with people who
actually are real lawyers, who earn their money doing IP licensing, I think
you are quite wrong. We should not change the license text in the files
*unless it is done in consultation with the copyright holders*. The DoD,
DOE, and other US Gov't entities are very particular about the copyright
text as it appears in the file, and that it not be changed. Same with
companies I've dealt with, including Google.
If, however, you are secretly a lawyer too, (which would not surprise me
given your broad skillset), then let us know :-)
Also, of course people proposed changing the license text, per Paul's
earlier comment:
"In the past Ron also disagreed on changing headers by Samsung – taken
from U-Boot I think – saying their lawyers drafted those and therefore
it should stay that way."
ron
[View Less]
ron minnich wrote:
> > IANAL (I'm not giving legal advice, yada yada), but I don't think that is
> > how this works. Companies you don't work for can't force you to do X or
> > prevent you to do Y with their files.
>
> Copyright statements are pretty complicated, and I am not sure you are
> right. I am afraid I can't take your advice ;-)
>
> You can change the code. But the copyright statement is pretty clear
> that you can't remove the copyright.
…
[View More]Copyright is one thing, licensing is a very different thing.
I haven't gotten the impression that anyone is suggesting to remove
or even change any copyright notices.
Copyright documents authorship (like git does too) but says nothing
about licensing terms.
The discussion is about having a uniform and short way to express the
license terms for individual files.
> Consider the simplest case: change the copyright to say V3 instead of V2.
> Would that be acceptable?
You are confusing copyright with licensing here. Copyright is a year
and an author. Those do not change.
Licensing terms can be changed with permission of the author. But if
an author contributed code licensed as GPLv2 then the license can not
be changed to v3 without the author's permission. How to document such
permission is a different discussion.
However, if the author has contributed code licensed as GPLv2 then
anyone who has that code can do, at a minimum, everything that the
license permits them to do.
Since the license header text is also covered by the license,
replacing it with an equivalent seems completely unproblematic to me.
> Generally you're supposed to take the text in the copyright as given and
> not change it. Certainly older coreboot code with US Gov't copyright made
> that clear.
Copyright yes of course.
Licensing is orthogonal.
> I've had it stated pretty clearly to me by people who are lawyers that
> it's a very bad idea to start rearranging copyright statements.
If they are the source of your confusion between copyright and
licensing they probably shouldn't be giving advice on this topic
anyway.
//Peter
[View Less]
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:32 PM Julius Werner <jwerner(a)chromium.org> wrote:
>
>
> IANAL (I'm not giving legal advice, yada yada), but I don't think that is
> how this works. Companies you don't work for can't force you to do X or
> prevent you to do Y with their files.
>
Copyright statements are pretty complicated, and I am not sure you are
right. I am afraid I can't take your advice ;-)
You can change the code. But the copyright statement is pretty clear that
you can'…
[View More]t remove the copyright. And, past a point, you can't change the
copyright, or it's meaningless. Consider the simplest case: change the
copyright to say V3 instead of V2. Would that be acceptable?
Generally you're supposed to take the text in the copyright as given and
not change it. Certainly older coreboot code with US Gov't copyright made
that clear.
I've had it stated pretty clearly to me by people who are lawyers that it's
a very bad idea to start rearranging copyright statements.
At the very least, it's going to upset people you don't want to upset; why
do that?
ron
[View Less]