[coreboot] libpayload: OHCI stack

Daniel Mack daniel at caiaq.de
Mon Oct 5 10:23:44 CEST 2009

On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 10:14:19AM +0200, Patrick Georgi wrote:
> Am Montag, den 05.10.2009, 09:55 +0200 schrieb Daniel Mack:
> > The code is derived from GPL'ed sources, so it's GPL, yes. But quoting
> > from the LICENSES file:
> > 
> >   The copyright on libpayload is owned by various individual developers
> >   and/or companies. Please check the individual source files for details.
> > 
> > So where so you see the problem?
> This statement talks about copyright. The issue is licensing.
> Right now, libpayload is BSD licensed, so users of the library are free
> to do whatever they please with the code (except removing copyright
> notices)
> A libpayload with your patches becomes (as a combined work) GPL licensed
> (the BSD portions are sublicensed as GPL, which is possible), which
> restricts the uses of it, and imposes conditions on the user beyond
> leaving the copyright notices alone.
> It would be possible to add a "GPL" configuration flag, and let the OHCI
> driver depend on it, so people have to choose "libpayload, GPL edition"
> to get this driver.
> But then, what happens if someone comes along with a zfs driver (derived
> from OpenSolaris, hence CDDL)? People have to decide to use either BSD
> +CDDL or BSD+GPL code - ie. either OHCI or ZFS, as the GPL doesn't allow
> code under different licenses, and both GPL and CDDL don't allow
> sublicensing.
> Such a model isn't really sustainable with many licenses (and why should
> the GPL get any special treatment?), and that's the (good) reason why
> very few projects do that.

Ok, I can't judge that. And I can't change the license as I'm not the
author of the original sources. Up to you to decide then :)


More information about the coreboot mailing list