Licensing Question

[Patrick Venture]

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:47 AM, krtaylor <kurt.r.taylor at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/8/18 5:45 PM, Patrick Venture wrote:
>>
>> So, I've spent the last hour trying to submodule my way to using
>> ipmitool.  I've managed to get it compiling for just the one file I
>> need (or want).  However, then I try to link it and then more failures
>> for things that are missing, such as helper methods.  So, then I add
>> the file that has those, and then it doesn't compile because that file
>> doesn't compile.  This is of course, not compiling with the -Werror
>> flag among other things with gcc.
>>
>> So, I can keep battling this, or I can ask -- the license for the
>> ipmitool just says I need to keep a copy of the license with the
>> source if I reuse it.  So, I can do that, and I can hack it up to work
>> -- but where I'm curious is -- how does that impact the license of
>> phosphor-ipmi-flash?
>
>
> Not a legal professional. That said, it depends on the license and linking,
> packaging, etc.
>
> I am assuming phosphor-ipmi-flash is Apachev2, so linking to any GPL may
> have viral effects. ipmitool looks to be bsd so it *should* be ok.

Yeah, phosphor-ipmi-flash is apache v2 and the ipmitool source has a
license file to a company that says I just need to include that
license file in anything that uses that code.  So, I'm going to drop
their license file into a folder with any code from them...

https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/phosphor-ipmi-flash/+/11858

This patchset is where it'll show up as actual code manipulation
versus just adding a gitsubmodule, if anyone is curious.

>
> Kurt Taylor (krtaylor)