On 05/31/13 18:33, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 10:43 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> It's even more fundamental. OVMF as a whole (at least in it's usable >> form) is not Open Source. > > The FAT module is required to make EDK2 usable, and yes, that's not Open > Source. So in a sense you're right. > > But we're talking here about *replacing* the FAT module with something > that *is* open source. And the FAT module isn't a fundamental part of > EDK2; it's just an optional module that happens to be bundled with the > repository. Yes. *Some* FAT module is a hard requirement. > So I think you're massively overstating the issue. OVMF/EDK2 *is* Open > Source, Agreed, > and replacing the FAT module really isn't that hard. technically it's not hard; for a seasoned file system developer (which I'm not, of course), even possibly missing UEFI bits, it should be children's play actually, considering the high quality of UEFI documentation and the responsiveness of edk2-devel. Considering US legal climate however, it appears *extremely* hard to replace the FAT module, in my unwashed personal opinion. Laszlo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
