Am 05.11.2014 um 17:04 schrieb Kyösti Mälkki: > You have verified binaryPI uses (almost) exactly the same API as > open-source AGESA so far. This complex API between AGESA component > and coreboot does not fall under the mere aggregation terms of GPL, > it is a form of runtime linking. In other words the distribution of > binaryPI violates rights of every copyright holder in the coreboot > sourcebase. I am not fond of Google's MRC binary or Intel's FSP > either, but their implementation appears to be a single entry/exit > with an array of platform configuration data. Please be careful with statements like that (that is: just don't. please.)
I talked with a number of lawyers over matters like that (some of them specialists in various jurisdictions' copyright laws), and they could make all kinds of compelling cases - for pretty much every outcome. All that "does situation X violate term Y in license Z" stuff is a matter of degrees. The result may even depend on the country in which you pose the question. Patrick
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
