coreboot April 2017

coreboot@coreboot.org

65 participants
143 discussions

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?
by Sam Kuper 01 Apr '17

01 Apr '17

Typo/clarity fixes. 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 > license. s/performed/perform/ > 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. Regards.

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?
by Nico Huber 01 Apr '17

01 Apr '17

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> >>>> wrote: >>>>> 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 >>> works, >> >> [...] >> 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): > https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode Seriously, I ask for a single thing and you want me to search the answer in six places? Nico

2 1

[RFH] Review of latest AMD AGESA changes needed
by Paul Menzel 31 Mar '17

31 Mar '17

Dear coreboot folks, Kyösti pushed quite some patches for review [1] 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. Thanks, Paul [1] https://review.coreboot.org/#/q/status:open+project:coreboot+branch :master+topic:agesa-wrapper-killer

1 0

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 April 2017