Licensing? Was: Removing Optical Boot Requirement from F20 Alpha Release Requirements
lists at colorremedies.com
Thu Sep 19 22:26:06 UTC 2013
On Sep 19, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote:
> I understand that distinction but as there is a FAT driver in the linux kernel distributed with Fedora, I don't see why it's suddenly a problem for an EFI virtual firmware that needs a FAT driver to ship with Fedora.
> Also, Virtualbox includes a UEFI virtual firmware that can read EFI FAT and it's also open source and isn't run afoul of licensing issues insofar as I'm aware.
License addition reads in part (simplification mine): used for and designed only to read and/or write to an EFI/UEFI file system only as necessary to emulate an implementation of the UEFI Specifications; and to create firmware, applications, utilities and/or drivers.
So I guess it's this limitation of the driver for a non-general purpose that's running afoul of Fedora's requirements, not that Fedora is running afoul of the driver license? If so, this is a problem for the Fedora license to be unable to ever ship with a virtualized UEFI firmware. One day we're going to want to securely boot VM's.
More information about the test