Dear OpenBIOS project members and other interested parties,
There has been a lot of rumours and discussion about the "availability" of sources for Award BIOS and other commercial firmwares on this mailing list recently. These sources were apparently available from their authors accidently. Due to the copyright and patent infringement implied by such actions as well as the fact that reusing faulty commercial concepts for an open-source firmware implementation is simply a bad idea I have to set down the following ground rules in order to achieve a clean implementation of our project goals and avoid possible future prosecution:
1) The goal of this project is to develop a free, open source, architecture independant firmware implementation following, when possible, the IEEE Standard for Boot (Initialization Configuration) Firmware (IEEE 1275-1994). Including not only the implementation of the standard itself but also the required toolkit consisting of a C to FCode compiler, an FCode tokenizer and an FCode detokenizer. This toolkit will simplify driver and API development implementing ANSI C as the development language instead of Forth/FCode as suggested by the IEEE standard.
2) We cannot allow _any_ discussion or use of _any_ copyrighted, patented, or otherwise protected Firmware or BIOS implementations in this project or on the mailing list associated with this project. All members of this project and/or the according mailing lists agree to not disclose or use any copyrighted, patented, or otherwise protected information, ideas or concepts.
3) We do not intend to implement any of the ideas or concepts expressed in the current Intel 32bit architechture, except when these are necessary to insure the compatability with existing hardware. Such ideas and concepts will only be used if such use is not restricted by _any_ laws, copyrights or patents.
4) In order to assure truly universal implementation and/or optimize the functionality and performance it is our expressed wish to work in conjunction with other open source firmware projects.
5) Cooperation with hardware vendors is necessary to implement this project on an architecture-independent basis. In certain cases this may include signing non-disclosure agreements with the aforementioned hardware vendors in an attempt to acquire hardware specific information or support that may not otherwise be available although the results of such cooperation must be freely redistributable.
6) Cooperation with any university, research project, or organization is desired except in such cases where the resulting information is restricted in use or redistributability.
7) Although we agree with the ideas promoted by the free software foundation we do not and/or cannot necessarily agree with all of the rules set by the foundation. In this light it could, to some extent, be a contrast of wishes to become an offical GNU project.
If, for whatever reasons, any of the above statements are unacceptable or seem to be inccorect or unclear in _any_ way please do not hesitate to discuss this matter on the mailing list, I am open for suggestions. This is simply an attempt to assure the legal stauts of this project, protecting those involved from legal prosecution as well as to state the general goals of the project.
Best regards, Stefan Reinauer stepan@core-systems.de OpenBIOS project founder.
- Although we agree with the ideas promoted by the free
software foundation we do not and/or cannot necessarily agree with all of the rules set by the foundation. In this light it could, to some extent, be a contrast of wishes to become an offical GNU project.
How about a BSD'ish style license? I'm not sure how others feel about their code being used for 3rd party profit though.
~Jason
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Jason Gurtz wrote:
- Although we agree with the ideas promoted by the free
software foundation we do not and/or cannot necessarily agree with all of the rules set by the foundation. In this light it could, to some extent, be a contrast of wishes to become an offical GNU project.
How about a BSD'ish style license? I'm not sure how others feel about their code being used for 3rd party profit though.
BSD can give vendors heartburn. It's a long story. Our vendors requested that we stick with GPL.
ron
- To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
BSD can give vendors heartburn. It's a long story. Our vendors requested that we stick with GPL.
I'd like to hear this...
Eddy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, E.B. Dreger wrote:
BSD can give vendors heartburn. It's a long story. Our vendors requested that we stick with GPL.
basically we floated a question to the list a year or so ago. Did the various contributors prefer GPL, LGPL, or BSD?
Our vendors that are contributing code preferred GPL overwhelmingly. First, they see GPL as a competitive advantage for vendors who contribute.
It also levels the playing field.
Second, BSD would allow competitors to take vendor-provided source and then reship binary. This is bad news for vendors.
So we stuck with GPL.
ron
- To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
* Jason Gurtz jason@tommyk.com [010828 04:51]:
- Although we agree with the ideas promoted by the free
software foundation we do not and/or cannot necessarily agree with all of the rules set by the foundation. In this light it could, to some extent, be a contrast of wishes to become an offical GNU project.
How about a BSD'ish style license? I'm not sure how others feel about their code being used for 3rd party profit though.
My main concerns are not really 3rd party profits but just religious/political decisions mady be the FSF or certain persons making decisions for FSF that do not like the ideas for example of having virtual machine capable backends because theoretically it would be possible to work around the GPL creating binary drivers. Check out discussions on creating GCC backends for stack based machines such as the JVM, as to be found on various mailing list archives of certain gcc mailing lists. I believe that it's our responsability to change the attitude of the people using our work to recontribute as they use it. I don't feel like restricing anyone, so I rather accept one or two black sheep than making a big step backwards technology-wise or letting the whole idea of having a free and open source firmware go down due to problems that could be solved by leaving behind at least a bit of religion.
Best regards,
Stefan
Stefan Reinauer wrote:
- Jason Gurtz jason@tommyk.com [010828 04:51]:
- Although we agree with the ideas promoted by the free
software foundation we do not and/or cannot necessarily agree with all of the rules set by the foundation. In this light it could, to some extent, be a contrast of wishes to become an offical GNU project.
How about a BSD'ish style license? I'm not sure how others feel about their code being used for 3rd party profit though.
My main concerns are not really 3rd party profits but just religious/political decisions mady be the FSF or certain persons making decisions for FSF that do not like the ideas for example of having virtual machine capable backends because theoretically it would be possible to work around the GPL creating binary drivers. Check out discussions on creating GCC backends for stack based machines such as the JVM, as to be found on various mailing list archives of certain gcc mailing lists. I believe that it's our responsability to change the attitude of the people using our work to recontribute as they use it. I don't feel like restricing anyone, so I rather accept one or two black sheep than making a big step backwards technology-wise or letting the whole idea of having a free and open source firmware go down due to problems that could be solved by leaving behind at least a bit of religion.
I'm not a fan of the GPL either ... I go with the MPL for all my software ... http://www.mozilla.org/MPL ...
howefver sometimes it does feel like signing your rights away...
I agree with re-education though ;-)
Yours
Matthew
* Jason Gurtz jason@tommyk.com [Aug 27. 2001 19:40]:
- Although we agree with the ideas promoted by the free
software foundation we do not and/or cannot necessarily agree with all of the rules set by the foundation. In this light it could, to some extent, be a contrast of wishes to become an offical GNU project.
How about a BSD'ish style license? I'm not sure how others feel about their code being used for 3rd party profit though.
People who write code, can license their code however they want to. Then it's up to the project leader to determine if he want it in the project or not. Personally I will GPL all code I am to contribute.
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Mads Martin [iso-8859-1] J�rgensen wrote:
- Jason Gurtz jason@tommyk.com [Aug 27. 2001 19:40]:
- Although we agree with the ideas promoted by the free
software foundation we do not and/or cannot necessarily agree with all of the rules set by the foundation. In this light it could, to some extent, be a contrast of wishes to become an offical GNU project.
How about a BSD'ish style license? I'm not sure how others feel about their code being used for 3rd party profit though.
People who write code, can license their code however they want to. Then it's up to the project leader to determine if he want it in the project or not. Personally I will GPL all code I am to contribute.
That's not actually true. Code licensed under GPL does not allow for any other kind of license. That's because the GPL expressly forbids non-public source, something which other licenses allow. You cannot mix GPL code with anyother license type. Period. End of story.
Read the license, you'll see what I mean. If you decide that your code should only be licensed under GPL, and you contribute it to a BSD project, you might as well contribute nothing.
Chris.
-- chris maresca internet systems architect -- www.chrismaresca.com
"linux, only up 138 days, because california has flaky power... "
- To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
* Chris Maresca ckm@crust.net [010828 19:26]:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Mads Martin [iso-8859-1] Jørgensen wrote:
People who write code, can license their code however they want to. Then it's up to the project leader to determine if he want it in the project or not. Personally I will GPL all code I am to contribute.
That's not actually true. Code licensed under GPL does not allow for any other kind of license. That's because the GPL expressly forbids non-public source, something which other licenses allow. You cannot mix GPL code with anyother license type. Period. End of story.
Not exactly true. If you contribute to the exact code base directly, your code has to have the same license to be included, yes. But Open Firmware uses a modular design, and it would be very well possible to create a net boot module or a (graphical) user interface that uses the openfirmware lowlevel api under BSD license, which could still be used with OpenBIOS. It's similar with the Linux kernel and application programs that run upon the kernel, only communicating via a defined API. These programs do not link against the kernel, so they might have a different license.
Read the license, you'll see what I mean. If you decide that your code should only be licensed under GPL, and you contribute it to a BSD project, you might as well contribute nothing.
A license is only valid to the point to which the license owner is willing to inforce what it says anyways. So, except any religiousity, why should anyone want to inforce that part if it only keeps back enhancement of the software project
Best regards, Stefan
In light of Stefan's excellent message, I would strongly suggest that people STOP requesting Award BIOS on this list.
If you want to request it, that's fine, but I don't want to know about it, and I'm pretty sure that Stefan doesn't either.
You can setup your own list, using something like http://www.topica.com
Thx.
Chris.
-- chris maresca internet systems architect -- www.chrismaresca.com
"linux, only up 138 days, because california has flaky power... "
- To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
* Stefan Reinauer stepan@core-systems.de [010828 03:20]:
- Although we agree with the ideas promoted by the free software foundation we do not and/or cannot necessarily agree with all of the rules set by the foundation. In this light it could, to some extent, be a contrast of wishes to become an offical GNU project.
For clarification: This does not mean that we do not like or do not want to use GPL as OpenBIOS license. GNU projects are rather those mentioned on the GNU website and following a set of rules including to use GNU utilities for development whenever possible as well as following some GNU coding conventions. But this does not always make sense. Writing a simple C compiler to translate C to FCode is most probably more effective than writing a GCC backend to do so. This affects the time you need to write such a compiler as well as the quality of the produced code as gcc's mid layer language RTL is not very good for (virtual) machines without registers. Still, writing a small compiler for that purpose is contradictory to the idea of reusing the existing GNU code base.
Best regards, Stefan
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
For clarification: This does not mean that we do not like or do not want to use GPL as OpenBIOS license. GNU projects are rather those mentioned on the GNU website and following a set of rules including to use GNU utilities for development whenever possible as well as following some GNU coding conventions. But this does not always make sense.
Exactly. We were looking at making linuxbios a GNU project and did not like all the overhead and conditions, plus I am told you have to use autoconf etc. which makes ZERO sense for linuxbios.
GPL is not the same as being a GNU project.
ron
- To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
[...] In this light it could, to some extent, be a contrast of wishes to become an offical GNU project.
For clarification: This does not mean that we do not like or do not want to use GPL as OpenBIOS license. GNU projects are rather those mentioned on the GNU website and following a set of rules [...]
Ahh, I see I'd mis-understood. I've seen a lot of perjurative views towards GNU/GPL in other places so easy for me to make the mistake.
Cheers,
~Jason
--
- To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message