Licensing Question

[Patrick Venture]

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Vernon Mauery
<vernon.mauery at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 08-Aug-2018 03:45 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
>
>
> Okay, I'll bite. What are you trying to use ipmitool for?

I'm trying to use the ipmitool source for speaking IPMI without
duplicating the code to do so.  I can just open the file interface
myself and handle it, but it seemed to reinvent the wheel on this one.
Although I do need to push a bugfix to ipmitool where they don't check
the msgId returned to see if it matches their expectation.  Unless
someone else fixed it (still need to check).

>
>> 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.
>
>
> I think Alexander is working on getting ipmitool to compile without warnings
> upstream. That is quite the task though; he inherited a lot of warnings. :)
>
>> 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?
>
>
> This is where the lawyers start to smile....

The license is fairly permissive, just says I need to include it.

>
>
>> (Some of the things where gcc is complaining, I can go ahead and
>> submit patches to fix.)
>>
>> Patrick