On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Anthony Liguori <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jordan Justen <jljusten@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Anthony Liguori <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> In terms of creating a FAT module, the most likely source would seem to >>> be the kernel code and since that's GPL, I don't think it's terribly >>> avoidable to end up with a GPL'd uefi implementation. >> >> Why would OpenBSD not be a potential source? >> >> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/msdosfs/ > > If someone is going to do it, that's fine. > > But if me, it's going to be a GPL base. Of potential modules for GPL, this wouldn't be my first choice. For EDK II it would be nice if all the core essential pieces were BSD licensed. This allows more flexibility for those that don't want to use GPL. Of course, the fact that the current FAT driver is exclusionary for free software projects is a point that is not lost on me. I just don't agree that the best response to this is a GPL'd FAT driver. (But, it does seem fair. :) > Actually, enabling GPL > contributions to OVMF is a major motivating factor for me in this whole > discussion. I wouldn't mind figuring out a way to allow GPL components for people that prefer that. EDK II has thus far not proved very welcoming on this front. I think the main repo will remain BSD though. I think that the sub-modules option is the best way to address this. But, I'm not going to bother with creating the sub-module repos if no one is going to use them. (As it was in the past.) -Jordan -- 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
