Re: [coreboot] libpayload and LGPL code

[Peter Stuge]

Chauhan, Himanshu wrote:
> > Chauhan, Himanshu wrote:
> > > In that case would it make sense to put it in FILO which is GPL?
> >
> > Yes, I think that's a very good idea.
>
> But to my understanding, it would convert FILO from GPLv2 to GPLv3.
> Isn't it?

Adding a source file with a particular license does not automatically
affect the license of other source code.

But creating a work which includes some GPLv3 code does require all
other code to be compatible with that new GPLv3 code.

I notice that currently this is not the case for FILO, since the
license of other source files is GPL version 2 only.

You are correct that in order to include GPLv3 code into FILO, it
would be neccessary for copyright holders for existing files to agree
on changing the license of those files to one which permits combining
their work with GPLv3 code. The simplest change would be to change
from current "GPLv2 only" to "GPL v2 or later" - but I do not know if
all copyright holders would agree, and/or if it is something we want
to even attempt. Some copyright holders might not be involved in the
coreboot project anymore. :\

It can be possible to mix different licenses, but it does make things
more complicated.

The license issue aside, I think that FILO is a more natural place
for storage device drivers than libpayload. (Ron, here we go, drivers...)

Maybe it is easiest to use SeaBIOS to do what you want? :)

//Peter

libpayload and LGPL code

[Chauhan, Himanshu]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Peter Stuge  wrote:
> Chauhan, Himanshu wrote:
> > > Chauhan, Himanshu wrote:
> > > > In that case would it make sense to put it in FILO which is GPL?
> > >
> > > Yes, I think that's a very good idea.
> >
> > But to my understanding, it would convert FILO from GPLv2 to GPLv3.
> > Isn't it?
>
> Adding a source file with a particular license does not automatically
> affect the license of other source code.
>
> But creating a work which includes some GPLv3 code does require all
> other code to be compatible with that new GPLv3 code.
>
> I notice that currently this is not the case for FILO, since the
> license of other source files is GPL version 2 only.
>
> You are correct that in order to include GPLv3 code into FILO, it
> would be neccessary for copyright holders for existing files to agree
> on changing the license of those files to one which permits combining
> their work with GPLv3 code. The simplest change would be to change
> from current "GPLv2 only" to "GPL v2 or later" - but I do not know if
> all copyright holders would agree, and/or if it is something we want
> to even attempt. Some copyright holders might not be involved in the
> coreboot project anymore. :\
>
> It can be possible to mix different licenses, but it does make things
> more complicated.
>
> The license issue aside, I think that FILO is a more natural place
> for storage device drivers than libpayload. (Ron, here we go, drivers...)
>
> Maybe it is easiest to use SeaBIOS to do what you want? :)

Hmmm... It would rather be much easier to write my own version of Virtio
layer for Coreboot/FILO than using SeaBIOS. I don't want to use any
software, as guest under Xvisor, with any kind of modifications.

I hate L/GPL3 for this incompatibility. This affects the derived work. But
it seems nothing can be done.

So shall I abandon this review too? I think I should. Let me work on it
from scratch. I will probably make it GPL2 than BSD.

Himanshu
> //Peter