coreboot March 2015

coreboot@coreboot.org

62 participants
166 discussions

Re: [coreboot] Long license headers (ANGER WARNING)
by Alexandru Gagniuc 04 Mar '15

04 Mar '15

On Tuesday, March 03, 2015 07:32:47 PM Julius Werner wrote: > I would be in favor of smaller header comments, but I think we should > clearly define (and try to enforce) a standard way to write it and if > possible migrate old files over. Agreed. My only request is that we do so in a way which only takes one line. We have 80 characters to choose a license. Let's do it wisely. Alex

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Long license headers (ANGER WARNING)
by Julius Werner 04 Mar '15

04 Mar '15

> > 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. >> > > That's right, you don't get to change other people's headers, especially > when the headers are created by company lawyers. They get picky that way. > 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. All they can do is choose to license their files under the GPL (or a compatible licence whose covered work may be converted to it). If they do, the text of the GPL is the only thing that can restrict what you do with them. If they don't, then you're not allowed to submit it to coreboot in the first place. It's not possible to license code as "GPL, *but* you need to buy me a Pony every time you change line 273"... if you try to add your own rules, the code is no longer GPL-compatible and cannot legally be merged into coreboot. And once someone representing that company signs off on a file that says "...blahblahblah under the terms of the GNU General Public license...", their lawyers can't tell you anything as long as you comply with the text of the GPL (well, they'll try to tell you anyway, but you don't need to listen). I would be in favor of smaller header comments, but I think we should clearly define (and try to enforce) a standard way to write it and if possible migrate old files over.

1 0

Re: [coreboot] x201t + windows7
by Zaolin 04 Mar '15

04 Mar '15

Hi, have seen the same problem on all thinkpad product types supported by coreboot. Maybe someone should get a Windows Developer Edition and solve this bug ;) . Regards Zaolin > Hi, > > I tried today a windows 7 installation usb stick and a cd disc. > Both 32bit and 64bit. > > Both Windows' stopping at disk.sys and the hdd led on. > 32bit: sometimes windows boots, most time not. > > Any ideas, what's wrong? > > Best, > lynxis > >

3 2

Re: [coreboot] ASUS F2A85-M PRO
by Corey Osgood 04 Mar '15

04 Mar '15

Oops, sorry, just saw your other mail, and noticed the note in the wiki to contact the list for details. -Corey On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Corey Osgood <corey.osgood(a)gmail.com> wrote: > http://www.coreboot.org/Board:asus/f2a85-m > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 1:42 PM, David Englund <public(a)beloved.name> wrote: >> Is this board supported? >> >> -- >> coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org >> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Long license headers (ANGER WARNING)
by Alex Gagniuc 03 Mar '15

03 Mar '15

> Alexandru Gagniuc > Bla Bla Bla > http://blablabla.blabla.com My apologies about that. Some ancient setting I forgot to change.

1 0

ASUS F2A85-M2
by David Englund 03 Mar '15

03 Mar '15

Should "ASUS F2A85-M2" be removed from http://www.coreboot.org/Board:asus/f2a85-m

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Long license headers (ANGER WARNING)
by Alex Gagniuc 03 Mar '15

03 Mar '15

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:16 AM, ron minnich <rminnich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:42 AM Peter Stuge <peter(a)stuge.se> wrote: >> >> ron minnich wrote: >> >> >> Every project *does* however get to decide on formal requirements for >> all contributions, and reject contributions which fail to meet those >> requirements. > > > And that's an excellent point. > > So, Alex, Paul, Peter, anyone: if you want to craft a "how to create > license headers" document (is there one?) that we could put at the top > level, that's great. > Well, I was going to edit the wiki to remove the recommendation to use long headers. It's locked. I refuse to contribute documentation as long as we lock pages to a select few. Alex > When we released Plan 9 under GPL, (github.com/brho/plan9) it boiled down > to: > - file in top level of the tree > - this statement in each file > /* > * This file is part of the UCB release of Plan 9. It is subject to the > license > * terms in the LICENSE file found in the top-level directory of this > * distribution and at http://akaros.cs.berkeley.edu/files/Plan9License. No > * part of the UCB release of Plan 9, including this file, may be copied, > * modified, propagated, or distributed except according to the terms > contained > * in the LICENSE file. > */ > > That's how Eben Moglen told us it should be done. If anyone knows, he does, > since he wrote the license and procedures. > > ron > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org > http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot -- Alexandru Gagniuc G-Tech Custom Computer Systems http://gtechccs.ecrater.com

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Long license headers (ANGER WARNING)
by Peter Stuge 03 Mar '15

03 Mar '15

ron minnich wrote: > > 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. > > That's right, you don't get to change other people's headers, especially > when the headers are created by company lawyers. This is very true. Every project *does* however get to decide on formal requirements for all contributions, and reject contributions which fail to meet those requirements. But creating and upholding requirements isn't always important. //Peter

2 1

Long license headers (ANGER WARNING)
by Alexandru Gagniuc 03 Mar '15

03 Mar '15

There's this thing called a copyright notice, which is pretty cool. When coding on 24" monitors or larger, it's this tiny thing that keeps some legal history of a file. The world is perfect and there are no issues! Then FSF comes and teaches us to be in-your-face with a 20+ line copyright notice, and laptops happen. And 14" screens become a long-forgotten glory. Now you have to *BLEEP*ing scroll down every time you open a file just to get to the real content. It becomes so annoying, that I will personally stop giving positive gerrit scores on any CL that introduces such a file. Then we get to situations where we waste all that copyright notice space for one line of code [1]. This madness has to stop. Tell me what the file does, add your (C) line, tell me how you license the file, and move on! Start coding already for *BLEEP*'s sake! Here: /* * On copyright notices: Angry email to coreboot mailing list * * Copyright (C) Some really pissed off guy <angry(a)mad.com> * Licensed under WTFPL, or, at your option, Allah Akbar public license. */ There, you've achieved the same thing as that abomination of notice that we need to change whenever some third party moves its headquarters. Now I can open a file and see /* * On the subject of flowers and sunny skies * ... and I immediately know I'm in the wrong place. Be pragmatic! Be practical! Tell me what your file does. Talk about it. Document stuff. It's a much better use of space. I could probably kidnap any of you, torture you asking for your bank information, and you'd be much more likely to recite, without error, all versions of the GPL. And once that's settled, we can start migrating all files to concise notices, while keeping the exact same information we had before. TL;DR 1) Tell me about your file 2) Add your (C) line 3) Document the license of your choosing (in 1 line) 4) Move on to coding! [1] http://review.coreboot.org/#/c/8488/10/src/cpu/amd/model_10xxx/ram_calc.h Alex

3 3

Re: [coreboot] [flashrom] New flashrom logo - please vote!
by Stefan Tauner 03 Mar '15

03 Mar '15

On Mon, 2 Mar 2015 09:03:59 -0800 Vadim Bendebury <vbendeb(a)chromium.org> wrote: > Not that I care much, but I can't help it: this new symbol looks very > much like the infamous SS Bolts: > http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/hate-on-display/c/ss-bolts.html#.VPSXeFX3… Yes, it could be mistaken for a sig rune although it clearly differs (the rune is not formed as an arrow on the bottom but is symmetric). I would not use two of this or similar symbols side by side because it could easily be seen as a political statement I definitely don't want to make. But on the other hand there are a lot of other (admittedly less known) runes and symbols used by the SS or other Nazi organizations that we use on a daily basis probably without even knowing it... (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runic_insignia_of_the_Schutzstaffel#mediaview…) So thanks for bringing this up - it is a valid concern - but I draw the line not to cross elsewhere. -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

3 2

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

coreboot March 2015