On 11/27/19 6:04 PM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 16:33:28 +0000, Pete Batard wrote:
Signed-off-by: Pete Batard <p...@akeo.ie>
---
Platform/RaspberryPi/Drivers/ConfigDxe/ConfigDxe.c | 137
++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 96 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Platform/RaspberryPi/Drivers/ConfigDxe/ConfigDxe.c
b/Platform/RaspberryPi/Drivers/ConfigDxe/ConfigDxe.c
index 98e58a560ed4..26bc92f28185 100644
--- a/Platform/RaspberryPi/Drivers/ConfigDxe/ConfigDxe.c
+++ b/Platform/RaspberryPi/Drivers/ConfigDxe/ConfigDxe.c
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
/** @file
*
- * Copyright (c) 2018, Andrei Warkentin <andrey.warken...@gmail.com>
+ * Copyright (c) 2019, ARM Limited. All rights reserved.
"All rights reserved."?
To be honest, that's something that's been bothering me too in this codebase
(and some other ones too, where you get to see the same), since there are
only so many rights one can reserve when the code is actually governed by
the Open Source license being used, and therefore asserting that you reserve
"all rights" seems to be in direct conflict with that.
However, I am not a lawyer, and this seems to be standard boilerplate being
imposed by large companies. For instance, you'll find plenty of instances of
it in the existing codebase. E.g.
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/ArmPkg/Include/AsmMacroIoLib.h
has three separate entities that appear to state that each one holds all the
rights to the source, which I can't help by find amusing.
I guess we're supposed to understand that each entity reserves all rights to
the code they've actually written (including the right to do something that
might go against the license, since "All rights" > "Rights to the extent
being granted by the BSD"), and that it's up to legal departments to sort up
the mess, if mess there is...
Yeah, that mostly matches my interpretation.
My understanding is that there are certain paranoid interpretations
under which you *give away* rights to code you contribute to an open
source project - like the right to also publish/contribute the same
code under some other license.
I don't know if this stems from things like copyright assignment
agreements, which (for similar reasons) may explicitly grant back to
the contributor a bunch of rights to the contributed code, and various
corporate legal departments just blindly require it to be included
everywhere.
Phil: do a grep in linux, u-boot or qemu.
This is silly, but it's commonplace and non-controversial.
Sorry for keeping asking about licensing, I'm trying to understand
better the situation / status quo, I also am not a lawyer.
Thanks both for your explanations :)
Then again, while I think I can wrap my head against what copyright entails,
I'm not sure I completely get what these additional "rights" are supposed to
mean in this context (my current take being that we're supposed to be
believe that there exists an implicit grandfathered license, which gives all
rights to the parent company, and that governs a virtual version of the
source code containing only the changes that the developer applied, and
therefore that the BSD licensed version of the source that is then made
public is meant to be seen as a derivative of this virtual "All rights
reserved" incomplete source, hence granting a partial "All rights" for said
source to the company, if that makes any sense), so it may be good for
someone with better understanding of this to clarify, or point to a place
where this might be explained.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#51360): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/51360
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/62504750/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
