On 01/04/2017, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper(a)uclmail.net> wrote:
> As such, CC BY grants the creator of an adapted work the freedom to
> publicly performed or distribute that adapted work under a different
> Respectfully, I think you are still mistaken about this. "Relicensing"
> describes a new license is applied to a work (i.e. without the work
> needing to be altered). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relicensing
The same thing, but expressed better:
Respectfully, I think you are still mistaken about this. "Relicensing"
describes a licensed work being made available with a license under
which it was not available (i.e. without the work itself needing to be
altered). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relicensing . The key
point in relicensing is that the set of applicable licenses for the
work *does* change, but the work itself *does not* necessarily change.
On 01.04.2017 01:39, Sam Kuper wrote:
> On 31/03/2017, Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 31.03.2017 23:38, Sam Kuper wrote:
>>> On 31/03/2017, David Hendricks <david.hendricks(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper(a)uclmail.net>
>>>>> Also, to further address Patrick's point above about marketing
>>>>> material: it is important that the provenance of information about
>>>>> Coreboot can be established. This is a reputational matter. That means
>>>>> it is important that people should not legally be able to misrepresent
>>>>> Coreboot contributors' views, etc,
>>>> Both CC-BY and CC-BY-SA have "no endorsement" clauses
>>> Yes, but because CC BY imposes no restrictions on *second*-derivative
>> I'm not convinced. Relicensing adapted
>> work under different conditions would require the explicit permission
>> by the copyright holder.
> No, it wouldn't. That's what makes CC BY different from CC BY-SA.
So it changes copyright itself? We should stop this. IANAL, and I sup-
pose you aren't either.
I appreciate that you started this discussion. Having a license for our
documentation is really something we should have paid more attention to.
Discussing implications of particular licenses, however, is OT here. If
you really doubt the usefulness of CC BY, please take that to CC.
> (And I think you mean "licensing" rather than "relicensing", assuming
> we are both talking about the first time that the *adapted work* is
> licensed to the public.)
No, I meant relicensing. If you license adapted work you "relicense" the
parts which you don't have the copyright for.
>> And I can't find that permission in CC BY.
> See, especially, §1(a), §1(c), §1(h), §3(b), §3(d), and §4(b):
Seriously, I ask for a single thing and you want me to search the answer
in six places?
Dear coreboot folks,
Kyösti pushed quite some patches for review  to improve the AGESA
integration, and also to fix some bugs in AGESA. It’d be great, if you
could participate in reviewing, as I am not knowledgeable enough about
most of the changes, so I could only test the changes on the ASRock
E350M1, and that works.
If you have an AMD board being affected by the commits, that means
which use AGESA, it’d be great, if you also tested these changes.