Re: [Etherboot-developers] Q: GPL license clarification.

[<ebi...@ln...>]

Markus Gutschke <ma...@gu...> writes:

> Ken Yap wrote:
> >>Would everyone be amenable to some additional language
> >>in the GPL license clarifying that simple aggregation of
> >>etherboot in the same rom as another BIOS.  Does not constitute
> >>linkage and does not slurp the vendors ROM under the GPL.
> >>
> >>I don't think anyone has intended that but I have had at
> >>least one nervous BIOS vendor say something about it.
> > Do you mean some clarification that putting Etherboot in the ROM does
> > not suck in the BIOS under the GPL? I think this paragraph in COPYING is
> > the relevant one:
> > In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
> > with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
> > a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
> > the scope of this License.
> 
> [ Long legal discussion ahead; if it bores you, then the summary is:
>    Go ahead! I see no problem with bundling etherboot with proprietary
>    software in the same ROM. ]
> 
> 
> I believe this is the same issue that Linus keeps mentioning on the kernel
> mailing list every so often.

Either interpretation is valid.

> if
> the BIOS vendor in question was really concerned about the legality of bundling
> etherboot with the BIOS, I would recommend they make a tool available that does
> exactly this: upgrade the etherboot implementation independently of the system
> BIOS.

That is what they are currently working on, and it is certainly 
a convenient feature to have.  However it is my perception that this
is unnecessary, and I would like for the perception to be that
making such an arrangement is nothing more than a means of
covering of being doubly certain no problems will result.

> 
> If it makes anybody feel better, I would have no problem with adding a clause to
> 
> the license saying that it is OK to aggregate etherboot together with
> proprietary software in the same ROM as long as the standard BIOS interface for
> communicating between etherboot and the other software is retained. In fact, if
> my legal analysis is correct (and please note that I am not a lawyer) this
> statement just reiterates what the law says anyway. On the other hand, if my
> analysis is wrong and both pieces of code are derived works of each other, than
> we could only grant this license extension if we managed to track down everybody
> 
> who ever substantially contributed to etherboot -- now, that could be tricky.

I only recommend adding text to the preamble to clarify the intent.
Not to change the terms and conditions of the license.

Mostly this is aimed at reducing fear uncertainty and doubt with
respect to etherboot.

Both the Linux kernel and dosemu have similar provisions in
their preamble to clarify the intention of the developers.

I have no wish to actually modify the license just to make
it perfectly clear to BIOS vendors that etherboot is not
a danger to them.

Eric