On 27.02.2007 23:22, svn@openbios.org wrote:
Author: uwe Date: 2007-02-27 23:21:59 +0100 (Tue, 27 Feb 2007) New Revision: 2562
Modified: trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/README Log: Add a note that the resulting LinuxBIOS images are licensed under the terms of the GPL, version 2 (trivial).
Not trivial, and the patch did not appear on the list. Plus, it did not have the ack of another person.
Regards, Carl-Daniel
Looking for an update to the "Supported Chipsets and Devices" page on linuxbios.org I am more then happy to update the page, but I need a list of the newly supported/WIP chips. Both north, and south. The CPU section really need help. The only supported CPU is QEMU, HAHAHA. I know we have support for may AMD cpus and VIA cpu's, what all do we support? -Adam Talbot
GX1? Still working on updating the "Supported Chipsets and Devices" page. Status of the GX1? The target using the GX1 code compiles ea(gle lion 5bcm), does it work?
Any one out there with a confirmed working chipset, work in progress, or you know it is not supported, please pipe up. Trying to help fill one of the Linuxbios documentation hole. -Adam
Adam Talbot wrote:
Looking for an update to the "Supported Chipsets and Devices" page on linuxbios.org I am more then happy to update the page, but I need a list of the newly supported/WIP chips. Both north, and south. The CPU section really need help. The only supported CPU is QEMU, HAHAHA. I know we have support for may AMD cpus and VIA cpu's, what all do we support? -Adam Talbot
Add a note that the resulting LinuxBIOS images are licensed under the terms of the GPL, version 2 (trivial).
Not trivial, and the patch did not appear on the list.
Sure it is trivial. It is just documenting a fact. It was discussed before, too.
Plus, it did not have the ack of another person.
It's trivial. Someone can un-ack and revert it if needed ;-)
Segher
On 28.02.2007 00:30, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Add a note that the resulting LinuxBIOS images are licensed under the terms of the GPL, version 2 (trivial).
Not trivial, and the patch did not appear on the list.
Sure it is trivial. It is just documenting a fact. It was discussed before, too.
Maybe I missed it, but when did the v2/v2+ discussion take place? Or is this just a symptom of sleep deprivation on my side?
Plus, it did not have the ack of another person.
It's trivial. Someone can un-ack and revert it if needed ;-)
But what's the point in Acked-by then? We can always revert if needed.
Regards, Carl-Daniel
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:37:26AM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 28.02.2007 00:30, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Add a note that the resulting LinuxBIOS images are licensed under the terms of the GPL, version 2 (trivial).
Not trivial, and the patch did not appear on the list.
Sure it is trivial. It is just documenting a fact. It was discussed before, too.
Maybe I missed it, but when did the v2/v2+ discussion take place? Or is this just a symptom of sleep deprivation on my side?
It was discussed, just not on this list ;)
Please note that this does _not_ mean that all of the LinuxBIOS code is GPLv2. The text I added just states a fact which has already been true all of the time. I did not make changes to any licensing.
Here's the situation: we have some files which are GPLv2, we have some files which are 'GPLv2 or later' and we have some files which have other licenses.
LinuxBIOS (binary) images are built from source code which is in part GPLv2 and in part 'GPLv2 or later'. Thus the resulting binaries as a whole are licensed under the GPLv2 only.
At least that's my understanding of the situation, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Plus, it did not have the ack of another person.
It's trivial. Someone can un-ack and revert it if needed ;-)
But what's the point in Acked-by then? We can always revert if needed.
The Acked-by is a means to enforce review on all but trivial patches. I used the exception documented in the wiki, where you can self-ack a commit which consists of trivial changes only. This is one of them, it's just one line of text in a README.
HTH, Uwe.
Please note that this does _not_ mean that all of the LinuxBIOS code is GPLv2. The text I added just states a fact which has already been true all of the time. I did not make changes to any licensing.
Here's the situation: we have some files which are GPLv2, we have some files which are 'GPLv2 or later' and we have some files which have other licenses.
LinuxBIOS (binary) images are built from source code which is in part GPLv2 and in part 'GPLv2 or later'. Thus the resulting binaries as a whole are licensed under the GPLv2 only.
At least that's my understanding of the situation, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
That sounds exactly right.
Segher
-
Adam Talbot -
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Segher Boessenkool -
Uwe Hermann