Re: [Qemu-devel] [edk2] license for binary drivers

[Paolo Bonzini]

Il 06/08/2014 23:51, Andrew Fish ha scritto:
> On Aug 6, 2014, at 6:44 AM, Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> wrote:
>> However, the non-free nature of the OVMF binaries mean that QEMU
>> will never ever ship OVMF binaries until the license is fixed for
>> the offending FAT driver.  Not only because we don't want to get
>> into legal minefields, but also because QEMU is free software and
>> wants to keep its distributed releases entirely free.
> 
> IANAL, but this stuff seems kind of free

There is only one definition of free software, which is what Laszlo
cited, and the Tiano Core FAT driver does not satisfy it.

And in practice that definition is practically the same as the open
source definition, which the Tiano Core FAT driver does not satisfy
either (see the paragraph "License must be technology-neutral").

So the driver is neither free software, nor open source software.

> Reverse engineering
> something does not make it free. Copying other peoples work and
> changing the license does not make it free. Nothing that the edk2 or
> QEMU developers do changes the Intellectual Property rights that are
> associated with the FAT file system.

Catch-all words that lump together copyright and patents, such as
"Intellectual Property", can help spreading FUD about free software, but
they cannot _forbid_ distribution or use of the software.  Which are
done at your own risk anyway, since almost all software licenses come
with a warranty disclaimer.

On the other hand, the Tiano Core FAT driver license is just about
copyright, and the driver simply _cannot_ be distributed or used except
"as necessary to emulate an implementation of the UEFI Specifications;
and to create firmware, applications, utilities and/or drivers".  Doing
so directly violates the license, without much room for discussion.

> The IP for FAT was contributed to UEFI, and the specification that
> includes the license in question was created. The edk2 FAT driver was
> coded to this specification and thus has this license.  Which means
> you can use FAT for UEFI firmware without paying a licensing fee.
> So from a commercial point of view the edk2 FAT driver is “free”.
> How you write a GPL licensed FAT driver seems like a legal quagmire.

I have three problems with this paragraph:

1) The FAT specification license is not the FatPkg license, and the FAT
specification licensor is not the FatPkg licensor.  Have you consulted
Apple's lawyers before claiming that what applies to the FAT
specification (and is written in the FAT speciification license) is also
valid for the FatPkg driver, as you are doing?  I would do it before
making such a sweeping claim.

2) The word free was obviously never used with the meaning of "gratis".

3) No one has mentioned the GNU GPL, and in any case, calling anything
"easy" or "hard" from a legal point of view is better left to real
lawyers, isn't it?  They have figured it out for Linux in the past.

Paolo