On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:01:28AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
On 10/22/19 12:35 AM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:33:19PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
I like this change in general. Note however that I could not have signed-off my patch that resulted in fc92d092ea4f704bc4d283c3911ee9894733f4ce according to the rules you introduce here.
I don't want to be nitpicky, but it is unclear if you are uncomfortable with the submission. If you are, please state that and I will revert the commit.
I'm not really uncomfortable. You are free to consider my submissions to be covered by GPLv3 or LGPLv3 and integrate them into seabios as you did. So "in spirit" I agree to the DCO.
Thanks.
If you think that the semantic you formalized in your change was in effect already before, then Gerd's mail to that topic[2] was at least incomplete. I asked about clarifying the semantic and didn't understand Matt's reply as to also apply to seabios but instead thought he describes the semantic for the kernel only and for seabios the semantic was only what Gerd described.
I apologize for the confusion.
The SeaBIOS license is in the COPYING and COPYING.LESSER files in the git repo.
So a contributor can select himself if he wants GPL or LGPL?
SeaBIOS itself uses the GNU LGPLv3 license. All of the c code in the src/ and vgasrc/ directories should state that (or, for a handful of files that came from external projects, should state a license compatible with the LGPLv3). It does appear a few c files are missing a license statement - this was a harmless omission.
I don't feel there is a reasonable confusion on the SeaBIOS license - I feel the intent is clear that the SeaBIOS code is licensed under the GNU LGPLv3.
-Kevin