[PATCH 2/2] x86: Support multiboot2 images

Simon Horman horms at verge.net.au
Wed Jul 3 01:00:07 PDT 2019


On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 02:29:56PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-07-02 at 13:09 +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > diff --git a/include/x86/multiboot2.h b/include/x86/multiboot2.h
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000..5693923
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/include/x86/multiboot2.h
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,416 @@
> > > +/*  multiboot2.h - Multiboot 2 header file.  */
> > > +/*  Copyright (C) 1999,2003,2007,2008,2009,2010  Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> > > + *
> > > + *  Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
> > > + *  of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to
> > > + *  deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the
> > > + *  rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or
> > > + *  sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
> > > + *  furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
> > > + *
> > > + *  The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
> > > + *  all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> > > + *
> > > + *  THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
> > > + *  IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
> > > + *  FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.  IN NO EVENT SHALL ANY
> > > + *  DEVELOPER OR DISTRIBUTOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY,
> > > + *  WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR
> > > + *  IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
> > > + */
> > 
> > As per my comment on your previous posting of this patch:
> > 
> > multiboot2.h does not appear to be licenced as GPLv2.
> > This seems incompatible with inclusion in kexec-tools.
> > Can we discuss this?
> 
> Er... why do you say that isn't GPL-compatible? It's just a standard
> MIT licence, isn't it?

Thanks David,

this is kind of what I meant by discuss.

Taking a look over the FSF site this morning I agree that:
a) this is the MIT license; and
b) it is compatible with GPLv2

With that in mind I have no objections to this series and
have applied it for inclusion in kexec v2.0.20.





More information about the kexec mailing list