On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 04:55:48PM -0600, Al Stone wrote: > Exactly so. Or, collaborate with the hardware vendor, or a distro > or anyone else that is a Promoter or Contributor as defined by UEFI > [0]. The only thing to keep clear when doing so is who owns the > intellectual property for any proposed change; this is one of the > reasons the UEFI Forum has paid membership levels -- to pay for the > legal assistance to make sure that the specs can be freely used. As > someone who is part of the ASWG, I'd personally be glad to help out > however I can in this regard. No, it's not about IP ownership, it's about whether those contributing the IP have waived patent rights. All contributors to a UEFI spec must be members - it's not acceptable for a member to contribute material on behalf of a non-member. > I'm also curious as to what's being referred to as ACPI support > code for large x86 vendors which is not part of the spec; I *think* > I know what's being described but a specific example would really > help me understand better. Almost everything in drivers/platform/x86, the ACPI support code under drivers/gpu, the PCC code for HP servers, some of the USB-ACPI glue (defined by a Microsoft spec), some of the ACPI/TPM integration (defined by TCG), some hwmon code, probably a few other bits and pieces. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
