Skip to content

Misrepresented Licensing #68

Description

@lzcunt

It seems that several files based on aarch64 code has this license notice which seems to be a rare variant of BSD-3-Clause with the second clause removed, no disclaimer and some wording changed and GPL dual-licensing:

/*
 * crt0-efi-aarch64.S - PE/COFF header for AArch64 EFI applications
 *
 * Copyright (C) 2014 Linaro Ltd. <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
 *
 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
 * are met:
 * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
 *    notice and this list of conditions, without modification.
 * 2. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products
 *    derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
 *
 * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
 * GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation;
 * either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
 */

Some, but not all files with this license notice incorrectly label this notice as GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause. This is not licensed under BSD-2-Clause. This should be updated to affect the reality.

inc/protocol/efidbg.h seems to be licensed under BSD-4-Clause.

inc/efipoint.h seems to be licensed under the MIT license.

inc/efiui.h is Copyright (C) 200 Intel Corporation which seems to suggest it's in the public domain 😜

efilib license does have an extra disclaimer not included in BSD-2-Clause, however since it refers to the EFI Spec and other information on the website it was originally distributed on, I believe it doesn't apply to this software and therefore doesn't put any extra restrictions on this project, but IANAL. I've labeled the efilib license as BSD-2-Clause but since the copyright notice has to be preserved, the extra sentence added to BSD-2-Clause has to be kept.

Given all the complexities of licensing in this project, I suggest a thorough review of all license notices in this repo and noting the SPDX identifier of the whole project in docs/README.packaging.md for us packagers. Here's my attempt at it, which might not be entirely correct so please triple check:

SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-2-Clause-Patent AND BSD-3-Clause AND BSD-4-Clause AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND MIT AND LicenseRef-scancode-bsd-no-disclaimer-unmodified

this is the license identifier according to fedora, I couldn't find the GPL-2.0-only files but maybe they were removed/relicensed between the version on fedora and master:

SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-2-Clause-Patent AND BSD-3-Clause AND BSD-4-Clause AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-only

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions