From trini at konsulko.com Tue Jan 5 13:54:24 2016 From: trini at konsulko.com (Tom Rini) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 13:54:24 -0500 Subject: [Fw_Os_Forum] UEFI license agreement and community-run implementations? Message-ID: <20160105185424.GS4093@bill-the-cat> Hey all, Putting my U-Boot custodian hat on, there are various parts of the UEFI specification we would like to implement in our project. I'm quite glad that the specifications are freely available to read. My question however is how would the adopter membership agreement work for us to implement any of the spec? Would the people that are writing the code have to work for a company that has executed the adopter agreement? Or is it possible to have certain projects granted an exemption? I assume that this question must be settled to some degree for the EDK II UEFI implementation hosted by TianoCore.org. Thanks! -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From Kevin.Davis at insyde.com Tue Jan 5 14:33:11 2016 From: Kevin.Davis at insyde.com (Kevin Davis) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:33:11 +0000 Subject: [Fw_Os_Forum] UEFI license agreement and community-run implementations? In-Reply-To: <20160105185424.GS4093@bill-the-cat> References: <20160105185424.GS4093@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <8171FE3654CB2B4390970F4DF50BAD23676443@msmail.insydesw.com.tw> Tom, I suggest you contact the UEFI President, Mark Doren. ( mark . doran @ intel . com ) He has the answers. Thanks, Kevin -----Original Message----- From: fw_os_forum-bounces at mailman.uefi.org [mailto:fw_os_forum-bounces at mailman.uefi.org] On Behalf Of Tom Rini Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 10:54 AM To: fw_os_forum at mailman.uefi.org Subject: [Fw_Os_Forum] UEFI license agreement and community-run implementations? Hey all, Putting my U-Boot custodian hat on, there are various parts of the UEFI specification we would like to implement in our project. I'm quite glad that the specifications are freely available to read. My question however is how would the adopter membership agreement work for us to implement any of the spec? Would the people that are writing the code have to work for a company that has executed the adopter agreement? Or is it possible to have certain projects granted an exemption? I assume that this question must be settled to some degree for the EDK II UEFI implementation hosted by TianoCore.org. Thanks! -- Tom From mark.doran at intel.com Tue Jan 5 15:04:50 2016 From: mark.doran at intel.com (Doran, Mark) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 20:04:50 +0000 Subject: [Fw_Os_Forum] UEFI license agreement and community-run implementations? In-Reply-To: <8171FE3654CB2B4390970F4DF50BAD23676443@msmail.insydesw.com.tw> References: <20160105185424.GS4093@bill-the-cat> <8171FE3654CB2B4390970F4DF50BAD23676443@msmail.insydesw.com.tw> Message-ID: Answered separately but the short version is the Forum welcomes individual Adopter Members. The main reason we put that into the mix is for support of unaffiliated implementers. -- Cheers, ? Mark. ? > -----Original Message----- > From: fw_os_forum-bounces at mailman.uefi.org [mailto:fw_os_forum- > bounces at mailman.uefi.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Davis > Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 11:33 AM > To: Tom Rini; fw_os_forum at mailman.uefi.org > Subject: Re: [Fw_Os_Forum] UEFI license agreement and community-run > implementations? > > Tom, > > I suggest you contact the UEFI President, Mark Doren. ( mark . doran @ intel . > com ) He has the answers. > > Thanks, > Kevin > > -----Original Message----- > From: fw_os_forum-bounces at mailman.uefi.org [mailto:fw_os_forum- > bounces at mailman.uefi.org] On Behalf Of Tom Rini > Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 10:54 AM > To: fw_os_forum at mailman.uefi.org > Subject: [Fw_Os_Forum] UEFI license agreement and community-run implementations? > > Hey all, > > Putting my U-Boot custodian hat on, there are various parts of the UEFI > specification we would like to implement in our project. I'm quite glad that > the specifications are freely available to read. My question however is how > would the adopter membership agreement work for us to implement any of the spec? > Would the people that are writing the code have to work for a company that has > executed the adopter agreement? Or is it possible to have certain projects > granted an exemption? I assume that this question must be settled to some > degree for the EDK II UEFI implementation hosted by TianoCore.org. Thanks! > > -- > Tom > _______________________________________________ > Fw_os_forum mailing list > Fw_os_forum at mailman.uefi.org > http://lists.mailman.uefi.org/mailman/listinfo/fw_os_forum -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 6283 bytes Desc: not available URL: From trini at konsulko.com Tue Jan 5 15:19:35 2016 From: trini at konsulko.com (Tom Rini) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 15:19:35 -0500 Subject: [Fw_Os_Forum] UEFI license agreement and community-run implementations? In-Reply-To: References: <20160105185424.GS4093@bill-the-cat> <8171FE3654CB2B4390970F4DF50BAD23676443@msmail.insydesw.com.tw> Message-ID: <20160105201935.GX4093@bill-the-cat> On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 08:04:50PM +0000, Doran, Mark wrote: > Answered separately but the short version is the Forum welcomes individual > Adopter Members. The main reason we put that into the mix is for support of > unaffiliated implementers. This seems reasonable for our goals, thanks! > > -- > Cheers, > ? > Mark. > ? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: fw_os_forum-bounces at mailman.uefi.org [mailto:fw_os_forum- > > bounces at mailman.uefi.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Davis > > Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 11:33 AM > > To: Tom Rini; fw_os_forum at mailman.uefi.org > > Subject: Re: [Fw_Os_Forum] UEFI license agreement and community-run > > implementations? > > > > Tom, > > > > I suggest you contact the UEFI President, Mark Doren. ( mark . doran @ > intel . > > com ) He has the answers. > > > > Thanks, > > Kevin > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: fw_os_forum-bounces at mailman.uefi.org [mailto:fw_os_forum- > > bounces at mailman.uefi.org] On Behalf Of Tom Rini > > Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 10:54 AM > > To: fw_os_forum at mailman.uefi.org > > Subject: [Fw_Os_Forum] UEFI license agreement and community-run > implementations? > > > > Hey all, > > > > Putting my U-Boot custodian hat on, there are various parts of the UEFI > > specification we would like to implement in our project. I'm quite glad > that > > the specifications are freely available to read. My question however is > how > > would the adopter membership agreement work for us to implement any of the > spec? > > Would the people that are writing the code have to work for a company that > has > > executed the adopter agreement? Or is it possible to have certain > projects > > granted an exemption? I assume that this question must be settled to some > > degree for the EDK II UEFI implementation hosted by TianoCore.org. > Thanks! > > > > -- > > Tom > > _______________________________________________ > > Fw_os_forum mailing list > > Fw_os_forum at mailman.uefi.org > > http://lists.mailman.uefi.org/mailman/listinfo/fw_os_forum -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: