coreboot March 2017

coreboot@coreboot.org

79 participants
267 discussions

Start a nNew thread

Re: [coreboot] Power supply and X220
by persmule 22 Mar '17

22 Mar '17

2 1

Re: [coreboot] Add me_cleaner to automated tests?
by Zoran Stojsavljevic 22 Mar '17

22 Mar '17

> I've told my wife that every time she buys a pair of shoes, I get to buy a new computer. > It works out well for both of us, but she's still winning. :) You should change the rule. You should buy a sport car for each pair of shoes. ;-) Zoran On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Martin Roth <gaumless(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Here's the list of boards I've got for coreboot testing. > > https://www.coreboot.org/User:MartinRoth#Platforms_supported_by_coreboot > > My plan is to get as many of these as I can set up for automated testing. > > When new boards are added to the tree, I try to buy them if possible, > but that's a lot of boards. I've told my wife that every time she > buys a pair of shoes, I get to buy a new computer. It works out well > for both of us, but she's still winning. :) > > Martin > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper(a)uclmail.net> wrote: > > Good to hear :) > > > > Does the Coreboot project already have an actual physical board for > > every board listed at https://www.coreboot.org/Supported_Motherboards > > ? If not, is there a list of which physical boards the project has > > (or, conversely, is lacking)? > > > > Thank you for answering all these questions! > > > > P.S. I notice you replied to me individually rather than to the list. > > If that was not intentional, please feel free to CC the list in your > > reply :) > > > > > > On 21/03/2017, Martin Roth <gaumless(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Well, ultimately, we'd like to have every board in the coreboot tree > >> tested automatically, if not for every commit, at least daily. So in > >> that respect, It's on the roadmap. It's just slow going. Currently > >> only a single configuration is tested, so that's something that would > >> need to be updated as well. Once that happens, I don't have any > >> problem with testing a cut-down ME. > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper(a)uclmail.net> > wrote: > >>> On 21/03/2017, Martin Roth <gaumless(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Most of our current automated testing is just build testing, although > >>>> we're working to expand that. The boot testing we DO have doesn't > >>>> currently include any boards with an ME - they're currently all boards > >>>> that don't require any blobs. > >>> > >>> Thanks for the info :) > >>> > >>> Is it on Coreboot's roadmap to do automated boot testing of boards > >>> that have a Management Engine? If so, is my suggestion to also test > >>> for incompatibilities with me_cleaner a feasible one? > >>> > >>> Thanks again :) > >> > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org > https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot >

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Power supply and X220
by Persmule 22 Mar '17

22 Mar '17

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Add me_cleaner to automated tests?
by Martin Roth 22 Mar '17

22 Mar '17

Here's the list of boards I've got for coreboot testing. https://www.coreboot.org/User:MartinRoth#Platforms_supported_by_coreboot My plan is to get as many of these as I can set up for automated testing. When new boards are added to the tree, I try to buy them if possible, but that's a lot of boards. I've told my wife that every time she buys a pair of shoes, I get to buy a new computer. It works out well for both of us, but she's still winning. :) Martin On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper(a)uclmail.net> wrote: > Good to hear :) > > Does the Coreboot project already have an actual physical board for > every board listed at https://www.coreboot.org/Supported_Motherboards > ? If not, is there a list of which physical boards the project has > (or, conversely, is lacking)? > > Thank you for answering all these questions! > > P.S. I notice you replied to me individually rather than to the list. > If that was not intentional, please feel free to CC the list in your > reply :) > > > On 21/03/2017, Martin Roth <gaumless(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Well, ultimately, we'd like to have every board in the coreboot tree >> tested automatically, if not for every commit, at least daily. So in >> that respect, It's on the roadmap. It's just slow going. Currently >> only a single configuration is tested, so that's something that would >> need to be updated as well. Once that happens, I don't have any >> problem with testing a cut-down ME. >> >> Martin >> >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper(a)uclmail.net> wrote: >>> On 21/03/2017, Martin Roth <gaumless(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Most of our current automated testing is just build testing, although >>>> we're working to expand that. The boot testing we DO have doesn't >>>> currently include any boards with an ME - they're currently all boards >>>> that don't require any blobs. >>> >>> Thanks for the info :) >>> >>> Is it on Coreboot's roadmap to do automated boot testing of boards >>> that have a Management Engine? If so, is my suggestion to also test >>> for incompatibilities with me_cleaner a feasible one? >>> >>> Thanks again :) >>

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?
by Sam Kuper 22 Mar '17

22 Mar '17

On 22/03/2017, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper(a)uclmail.net> wrote: > On 21/03/2017, Martin Roth <gaumless(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Wouldn't selecting CC BY-SA 4.0 also prevent that, if they're licensed >> at CC BY-SA 3.0? > > No, it would not prevent *importing* it, as the CC BY-SA licenses are > forward-compatible. > > However, it would prevent *exporting* material from the Coreboot wiki > to a CC BY-SA 3.0-licensed resource. N.B. I might have used "forward-compatible" incorrectly above (perhaps it should have been "backward-compatible"? I get those terms mixed up...). Everything else there is correct, though. In short, CC BY-SA-licensed material under a given version of that license can be re-used under the same or later versions of the license but not under earlier versions of the license. (I'm assuming all the other requirements of the license are complied with.)

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?
by Sam Kuper 22 Mar '17

22 Mar '17

On 21/03/2017, Martin Roth <gaumless(a)gmail.com> wrote: > So from the start, I just want to say that I'm not arguing just to > argue - I want to make sure we pick the correct license here. Likewise, and thanks for clarifying :) I appreciate your questions and have done my best to answer them. IANAL, though... >>> Is there a reason we shouldn't switch to CC BY 4.0? >> >> Arguably, yes: doing so would permit the use of Coreboot wiki material >> in proprietary works, which some wiki contributors might be opposed >> to. > > [...] > > If *SOME* > contributor to the wiki wanted a penny for anyone who used their > documentation, should we write that into the license? No, as that would be a crayon license. See https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/271080#271083 > Is picking BY > over BY-SA actually going to prevent anyone from contributing? I can't speak for anyone else, but I would be more hesitant to contribute under a BY license than a BY-SA one. > It > seems like it PREVENTS distribution, since we need to pick the exact > version of the license selected by other sites so that we can share > documentation between them. I think this is a misunderstanding. Like all licenses, it only prevents usage that is not compliant with the license. >> It would also prevent importing material from Wikipedia or Stack >> Exchange into the Coreboot wiki. > > Wouldn't selecting CC BY-SA 4.0 also prevent that, if they're licensed > at CC BY-SA 3.0? No, it would not prevent *importing* it, as the CC BY-SA licenses are forward-compatible. However, it would prevent *exporting* material from the Coreboot wiki to a CC BY-SA 3.0-licensed resource. >>> How much of the coreboot documentation is >>> applicable anywhere else? >> >> That remains to be seen. As Coreboot grows in popularity, its >> documentation is likely to be more widely applicable. > > This also seems like an argument for CC BY over CC BY-SA. I disagree. I'm not aware of any websites on the scale of Wikipedia or SE that use CC BY. >>> - Do we really care what Stack Exchange or any other group is using? >>> How much are we copying from them? >> >> At the moment, I don't know of any Coreboot wiki content that was >> copied from SE or Wikipedia. This is probably just as well, because >> such material would be in breach of its license ;) >> >> But as Coreboot becomes more popular, the likelihood increases that >> someone might post an answer on SE, or a description on Wikipedia, >> that is good enough that it is worth including it (either verbatim or >> appropriately edited) in the Coreboot wiki. For such inclusion to be >> possible, the Coreboot wiki's license obviously needs to be compatible >> with SE's license and Wikipedia's license. > > I guess I dislike this as a reason for choosing our license. If some > future Stack Exchange replacement comes along using a different > license, what then? We're stuck with what we've already picked. It probably makes more sense to make the Coreboot wiki compatible with the most obvious existing major collaborative websites than it does to speculate about potential future websites that might never in fact come into existence. Besides, there's no guarantee that your hypothetical SE replacement would use a license that is compatible with CC BY, either. >> As an aside: it is certainly possible in principle to dual-license (or >> even triple-license, etc) the Coreboot wiki's content. So, Coreboot >> could, for instance, decide to use CC BY-SA 3.0 *and* GFDL, with the >> licensee allowed to choose whichever they prefer. On the plus side, >> this would avoid the community having to choose between them (i.e. it >> avoids the "versus" aspect of the discussion you linked to). On the >> down side, it would prevent bi-directional compatibility with SE, as I >> pointed out here: >> https://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2017-March/083614.html . > > I'm fine with people dual licensing individual documents, the same as > we allow someone who creates a new file to choose to license it in > ways other than GPLv2, but I'd like to have a single license that > governs the coreboot documentation as well. Maybe that's not needed, > I'm not sure. It seems like we want to be able to say though "By > contributing documentation here, you agree that contributions are > licensed as X". I agree with your position. > I guess we also need to be careful about copying code into the > documentation as well, since it seems like nothing's compatible with > pulling GPL code into it. At least CC BY allows you to pull the > documentation into the code if there were ever a reason we wanted to > do that. I think that having a footer on the Coreboot wiki along the lines "All material herein is published under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless stated otherwise" would cover that eventuality, as long as any GPL code excerpts in the wiki were clearly marked as such. Best to ask the SFC for certainty on this point, though. Thanks again :)

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?
by Martin Roth 21 Mar '17

21 Mar '17

So from the start, I just want to say that I'm not arguing just to argue - I want to make sure we pick the correct license here. I'm not really opposed to BY-SA, but I'm not sure I see the benefit to saying that coreboot's documentation can only be shared under that particular version of that particular license. >> Is there a reason we shouldn't switch to CC BY 4.0? > > Arguably, yes: doing so would permit the use of Coreboot wiki material > in proprietary works, which some wiki contributors might be opposed > to. Ok, but does that make it the right choice for coreboot? If *SOME* contributor to the wiki wanted a penny for anyone who used their documentation, should we write that into the license? Is picking BY over BY-SA actually going to prevent anyone from contributing? It seems like it PREVENTS distribution, since we need to pick the exact version of the license selected by other sites so that we can share documentation between them. > It would also prevent importing material from Wikipedia or Stack > Exchange into the Coreboot wiki. Wouldn't selecting CC BY-SA 4.0 also prevent that, if they're licensed at CC BY-SA 3.0? >> How much of the coreboot documentation is >> applicable anywhere else? > > That remains to be seen. As Coreboot grows in popularity, its > documentation is likely to be more widely applicable. This also seems like an argument for CC BY over CC BY-SA. >> - Do we really care what Stack Exchange or any other group is using? >> How much are we copying from them? > > At the moment, I don't know of any Coreboot wiki content that was > copied from SE or Wikipedia. This is probably just as well, because > such material would be in breach of its license ;) > > But as Coreboot becomes more popular, the likelihood increases that > someone might post an answer on SE, or a description on Wikipedia, > that is good enough that it is worth including it (either verbatim or > appropriately edited) in the Coreboot wiki. For such inclusion to be > possible, the Coreboot wiki's license obviously needs to be compatible > with SE's license and Wikipedia's license. I guess I dislike this as a reason for choosing our license. If some future Stack Exchange replacement comes along using a different license, what then? We're stuck with what we've already picked. > As an aside: it is certainly possible in principle to dual-license (or > even triple-license, etc) the Coreboot wiki's content. So, Coreboot > could, for instance, decide to use CC BY-SA 3.0 *and* GFDL, with the > licensee allowed to choose whichever they prefer. On the plus side, > this would avoid the community having to choose between them (i.e. it > avoids the "versus" aspect of the discussion you linked to). On the > down side, it would prevent bi-directional compatibility with SE, as I > pointed out here: > https://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2017-March/083614.html . I'm fine with people dual licensing individual documents, the same as we allow someone who creates a new file to choose to license it in ways other than GPLv2, but I'd like to have a single license that governs the coreboot documentation as well. Maybe that's not needed, I'm not sure. It seems like we want to be able to say though "By contributing documentation here, you agree that contributions are licensed as X". I guess we also need to be careful about copying code into the documentation as well, since it seems like nothing's compatible with pulling GPL code into it. At least CC BY allows you to pull the documentation into the code if there were ever a reason we wanted to do that. Thanks, Martin

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Power supply and X220
by Persmule 21 Mar '17

21 Mar '17

5 5

Re: [coreboot] Add me_cleaner to automated tests?
by Sam Kuper 21 Mar '17

21 Mar '17

On 21/03/2017, Martin Roth <gaumless(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Most of our current automated testing is just build testing, although > we're working to expand that. The boot testing we DO have doesn't > currently include any boards with an ME - they're currently all boards > that don't require any blobs. Thanks for the info :) Is it on Coreboot's roadmap to do automated boot testing of boards that have a Management Engine? If so, is my suggestion to also test for incompatibilities with me_cleaner a feasible one? Thanks again :)

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?
by Sam Kuper 21 Mar '17

21 Mar '17

On 21/03/2017, Martin Roth <gaumless(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Sam. You're absolutely right, and I appreciate you pointing this > out. We need to get this fixed. Actually, as part of coreboot > joining the Software Freedom Conservancy, our documentation NEEDS an > open license of one sort or another. Thanks, Martin. Good to know I'm not barking in the dark. > Is there a reason we shouldn't switch to CC BY 4.0? Arguably, yes: doing so would permit the use of Coreboot wiki material in proprietary works, which some wiki contributors might be opposed to. It would also prevent importing material from Wikipedia or Stack Exchange into the Coreboot wiki. CC BY 4.0 is a free culture license, though, and would definitely be better than no license at all :) > - Do we really need BY-SA? Strictly speaking, no; but see above. > How much of the coreboot documentation is > applicable anywhere else? That remains to be seen. As Coreboot grows in popularity, its documentation is likely to be more widely applicable. > Why not just go with the least restrictive > license? See above. > - Do we really care what Stack Exchange or any other group is using? > How much are we copying from them? At the moment, I don't know of any Coreboot wiki content that was copied from SE or Wikipedia. This is probably just as well, because such material would be in breach of its license ;) But as Coreboot becomes more popular, the likelihood increases that someone might post an answer on SE, or a description on Wikipedia, that is good enough that it is worth including it (either verbatim or appropriately edited) in the Coreboot wiki. For such inclusion to be possible, the Coreboot wiki's license obviously needs to be compatible with SE's license and Wikipedia's license. > Here are the CC licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ > Discussion of CC BY-SA vs GFDL > :https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/GFDL_versus_CC-by-sa As an aside: it is certainly possible in principle to dual-license (or even triple-license, etc) the Coreboot wiki's content. So, Coreboot could, for instance, decide to use CC BY-SA 3.0 *and* GFDL, with the licensee allowed to choose whichever they prefer. On the plus side, this would avoid the community having to choose between them (i.e. it avoids the "versus" aspect of the discussion you linked to). On the down side, it would prevent bi-directional compatibility with SE, as I pointed out here: https://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2017-March/083614.html . > Once we decide which license to switch to, I think we're going to have > to remove or rewrite any documentation contributions from people who > don't want to agree to the license or who can't be reached. Agreed: I can't see any way around that, sadly.

1 0

← Newer
1
...
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
...
27
Older →

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 2017