[5/6] package/gnu-efi: fix legal-info

Fix a bunch of deficiencies:
  - 'debian/copyright' does not exist.
  - gnuefi is not GPLv2+. Only one AArch64 file has GPLv2+ headers,
    all others have BSD-3c
  - efilib is BSD-2c

Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
---
 package/gnu-efi/gnu-efi.mk | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Dear Yann E. MORIN,

On Sun,  5 Apr 2015 18:48:26 +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> Fix a bunch of deficiencies:
>   - 'debian/copyright' does not exist.
>   - gnuefi is not GPLv2+. Only one AArch64 file has GPLv2+ headers,
>     all others have BSD-3c
>   - efilib is BSD-2c

I don't quite agree here: some ARM files are also under GPLv2+, so I
believe the whole thing really is under GPLv2+.

This is also apparently the opinion of Debian:
http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/g/gnu-efi/gnu-efi_3.0i-2ubuntu1/copyright.

Thomas

Thomas, All,

On 2015-04-05 19:17 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly:
> On Sun,  5 Apr 2015 18:48:26 +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> > Fix a bunch of deficiencies:
> >   - 'debian/copyright' does not exist.
> >   - gnuefi is not GPLv2+. Only one AArch64 file has GPLv2+ headers,
> >     all others have BSD-3c
> >   - efilib is BSD-2c
> 
> I don't quite agree here: some ARM files are also under GPLv2+, so I
> believe the whole thing really is under GPLv2+.

The reasoning for changing that is:
  - there are two files with a GPLv2+ header;
    - gnuefi/crt0-efi-aarch64.S -> GPLv2+ or something like a BSD-2c
    - gnuefi/crt0-efi-arm.S     -> GPLv2+
  - all other files are BSD-3c (or have no licensing info)
  - we don't build gnuefi for ARM or AArch64, only for x86 or x86_64

However, re-reading README.gnuefi, we can read this:

---8<---
 gnuefi: This directory contains the glue necessary to convert ELF64
        binaries to EFI binaries.  Various runtime code bits, such as
        a self-relocator are included as well.  This code has been
        contributed by the Hewlett-Packard Company and is distributed
        under the GNU GPL.
---8<---

This is very confusing.Waht about changing to:

GNU_EFI_LICENSE = BSD-3c and/or GPLv2+ (gnuefi), BSD-3c (efilib)

> This is also apparently the opinion of Debian:
> http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/g/gnu-efi/gnu-efi_3.0i-2ubuntu1/copyright.

Well, I mostly disagree there, if only by looking at the files we *do*
build (others we don't care).

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

Dear Yann E. MORIN,

On Sun, 5 Apr 2015 19:31:34 +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote:

> The reasoning for changing that is:
>   - there are two files with a GPLv2+ header;
>     - gnuefi/crt0-efi-aarch64.S -> GPLv2+ or something like a BSD-2c
>     - gnuefi/crt0-efi-arm.S     -> GPLv2+
>   - all other files are BSD-3c (or have no licensing info)
>   - we don't build gnuefi for ARM or AArch64, only for x86 or x86_64
> 
> However, re-reading README.gnuefi, we can read this:
> 
> ---8<---
>  gnuefi: This directory contains the glue necessary to convert ELF64
>         binaries to EFI binaries.  Various runtime code bits, such as
>         a self-relocator are included as well.  This code has been
>         contributed by the Hewlett-Packard Company and is distributed
>         under the GNU GPL.
> ---8<---
> 
> This is very confusing.Waht about changing to:
> 
> GNU_EFI_LICENSE = BSD-3c and/or GPLv2+ (gnuefi), BSD-3c (efilib)

I would find this to be a safer value.

Thomas

Thomas, All,

On 2015-04-05 19:36 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly:
> On Sun, 5 Apr 2015 19:31:34 +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> > The reasoning for changing that is:
> >   - there are two files with a GPLv2+ header;
> >     - gnuefi/crt0-efi-aarch64.S -> GPLv2+ or something like a BSD-2c
> >     - gnuefi/crt0-efi-arm.S     -> GPLv2+
> >   - all other files are BSD-3c (or have no licensing info)
> >   - we don't build gnuefi for ARM or AArch64, only for x86 or x86_64
> > 
> > However, re-reading README.gnuefi, we can read this:
> > 
> > ---8<---
> >  gnuefi: This directory contains the glue necessary to convert ELF64
> >         binaries to EFI binaries.  Various runtime code bits, such as
> >         a self-relocator are included as well.  This code has been
> >         contributed by the Hewlett-Packard Company and is distributed
> >         under the GNU GPL.
> > ---8<---
> > 
> > This is very confusing.Waht about changing to:
> > 
> > GNU_EFI_LICENSE = BSD-3c and/or GPLv2+ (gnuefi), BSD-3c (efilib)
> 
> I would find this to be a safer value.

OK, I'll respin.

Thanks!

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.