Hello people,
This is a question and kind-of an announcement.
I'm just a few days ahead of the official opening of an online store that will sell corebooted laptops in Chile. For this purpose I've created a custom coreboot installer, and, since it's useful to me, I thought it could be useful for other people and uploaded it to the tubes.
Code is here: https://git.hacktivista.org/hackware-boot
This software is not a fork of coreboot, but an automated compiler/installer of coreboot that of course uses its tools. These are not shipped with it, but downloaded from git or the Debian repos.
In case you're wondering what's different from Skulls or osboot: It includes several security enhacements through the combination of a custom GRUB config and the usage of a custom tool called hwbtool. It also ships all available payloads that libgfxinit supports by default. I built it because I needed to automate the installation for my store's laptops.
Here the difficult part: I want to publish it (it's currently published indeed) under license that's incompatible with the GPL. The question is, is this legal? Also distributing the result of such combination?
Examples of such usage can be found here: https://git.sr.ht/~hacktivista/hackware-boot/tree/main/item/x230t/flash_spi-... https://git.sr.ht/~hacktivista/hackware-boot/tree/main/item/hwbtool#L167
As far as I understand I'm just using a software in a separate program, not linking nor intending to distribute derivatives of coreboot project programs under other license. But I thought it's better to ask.
Please refrain from asking out of topic questions regarding the software or the license on this thread. I know it might be a hot topic for some people and will happily answer via private email or even on a completely new thread here on this same list.
Thanks a lot,
Felix Freeman
Hi Felix,
Felix Freeman via coreboot wrote:
I'm just a few days ahead of the official opening of an online store that will sell corebooted laptops in Chile.
That's cool.
As far as I understand I'm just using a software in a separate program, not linking nor intending to distribute derivatives of coreboot project programs under other license.
You can not get qualified legal advice applicable to your particular jurisdiction from the coreboot mailing list.
That said, I think the key question in your case is whether your work can be considered a derivative work of coreboot or not.
Personally, I don't think a derivative work is limited to coreboot+patches; I understand it to be a broader concept that *would* include works like yours.
GPL allows you to do whatever you want "at home" as long as you don't distribute to others, so maybe that's a practical solution for you - but it's not really open, which I guess&hope is a USP for your business.
Please use a known compatible license instead... :)
Kind regards
//Peter
GPL allows you to do whatever you want "at home" as long as you don't distribute to others, so maybe that's a practical solution for you - but it's not really open, which I guess&hope is a USP for your business.
Actually I think that since I'm shipping the software on the computers, that would count as a distribution also. But in any case, giving freedom to end-users is definetely a must.
Please use a known compatible license instead... :)
Who can deny such a kind request, consider it done: https://git.sr.ht/~hacktivista/hackware-boot/commit/abb9e059c17f719a28f3243d...
Felix Freeman Escuela de técnica y cultura hacker
Hi Felix,
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 12:48:37PM -0400, Felix Freeman via coreboot wrote:
Please use a known compatible license instead... :)
Who can deny such a kind request, consider it done: https://git.sr.ht/~hacktivista/hackware-boot/commit/abb9e059c17f719a28f3243d...
I just saw this thread and looked at the diff. I see that you replaced the Hacktivista General Public License (which I'll call the HGPL) with GPLv2.
The HGPL notes that it is based on AGPLv3.
Given that:
- the HGPL wording makes it clear that your aim is strong copyleft (which I support!); and
- you are willing to ensure GPLv2 compatibility (in order to comply with Coreboot's license),
it seems to me that the most appropriate license for your software would be the AGPLv3, NOT the GPLv2.
AGPLv3 would comply with Coreboot's license AND would give you the strongest copyleft available among standard free software licenses.
GPLv2 would comply with Coreboot's license BUT would *not* give you the strongest copyleft available among standard free software licenses - not even close.
If I were you, I would unpublish the GPLv2 commit ASAP (before too many people pull it - though the genie can't really be put back in the bottle), and would instead make a new HEAD on top of 077e2f4 with the AGPLv3 as your license. This way, at least future commits to your software will be protected by AGPLv3.
Sam
P.S. I am not a lawyer, just someone with a strong interest in free software licensing.
On Thu Jul 28, 2022 at 2:33 PM -04, Sam Kuper wrote:
If I were you, I would unpublish the GPLv2 commit ASAP (before too many people pull it - though the genie can't really be put back in the bottle), and would instead make a new HEAD on top of 077e2f4 with the AGPLv3 as your license. This way, at least future commits to your software will be protected by AGPLv3.
AFAIK coreboot is GPLv2 only, thus incompatible with both the AGPLv3 and the HGPL. I'll leave it like this for now, but if anybody can prove that the compatibility indeed exists, I'll be glad to "replace" the GPLv2 commit.
Felix Freeman Escuela de técnica y cultura hacker
On Thu Jul 28, 2022 at 2:44 PM -04, Felix Freeman wrote:
On Thu Jul 28, 2022 at 2:33 PM -04, Sam Kuper wrote:
If I were you, I would unpublish the GPLv2 commit ASAP (before too many people pull it - though the genie can't really be put back in the bottle), and would instead make a new HEAD on top of 077e2f4 with the AGPLv3 as your license. This way, at least future commits to your software will be protected by AGPLv3.
AFAIK coreboot is GPLv2 only, thus incompatible with both the AGPLv3 and the HGPL. I'll leave it like this for now, but if anybody can prove that the compatibility indeed exists, I'll be glad to "replace" the GPLv2 commit.
Finally I've licensed it under GPLv2 or later, which should be the most frictionless option.
Felix Freeman Escuela de técnica y cultura hacker
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 06:33:15PM +0000, Sam Kuper wrote:
If I were you, I would unpublish the GPLv2 commit ASAP (before too many people pull it - though the genie can't really be put back in the bottle), and would instead make a new HEAD on top of 077e2f4 with the AGPLv3 as your license. This way, at least future commits to your software will be protected by AGPLv3.
P.S. Please read my "If I were you", above, in the sense of, "If I were in your shoes, wanting strong copyleft AND GPLv2 compatibility".
Not in the sense of "You should/must do this!" :D
I.e. My earlier message in this thread was given as a well-intentioned suggestion, not as any kind of order or diktat :)
As you may know, one of the problems with GPLv2 in embedded contexts was "Tivoisation". This is an example of why you might want to use AGPLv3 (which protects against Tivoisation) rather than GPLv2 (which doesn't).
Whatever you decide, it's great that you're working to increase the number of computers in the world with free software as standard. Kudos!
-
Felix Freeman -
Peter Stuge -
Sam Kuper