Re: help? efivar 0.20-3 fails to build on arm64
> [...] it's worth noting that there *is* a Free-as-in-Freedom FAT
> driver ( https://github.com/pbatard/efifs ), but it's derived from grub
> code that's GPLv3, and that makes for some interesting legal questions
> as well since in at least some of the ovmf/aavmf builds we want Secure
> Boot enabled, and absent a whole lot of work that means linking openssl
> in. I'm not even going to get in to thinking about which work is
> derivative of which between linking those three trees together.
The other day on the EDK2-devel list, someone wanted to contribute an
LGPL-licensed SmartCard driver to the TianoCore project, but they won't
take non-BSD stuff (except for FAT driver, of course).
OMVF targets aside, for real hardware, If GPL-derived code ends up in
Linux OEM's firmware volumes, it'll probably mean the OEM will have to
build the firmware, the existing IBVs will be too afraid to touch GPL code.
I wish some other UEFI Forum GPL-friendly vendors -- like Red Hat, SuSE,
Canonical -- would help create a place for non-BSD contributions to
TianoCore, so Linux OEMs can use them, and UEFI-based Linux-centric IBVs
can come into existance. :-)
In the current situation where Microsoft signs anything to be used on
Windows OEM's systems to work with Secure Boot, Microsoft as CA is free
to add restrictions to their signing, and non-GPLv3 is their main one
right now. Again, I don't see how UEFI can thrive on non-Windows systems
until the Windows OS vendor is stops being the CA for all non-Windows
OSes (except on Apple systems, ...unclear about ARM systems...) Isn't
there some community CA, like Software for Public Interest, or some
other org with CA abilities?
Reply to: