illumos gate

• If we don't accept the terms of the licence currently in the header, we gain no rights from it, but we aren't bound by its terms
• There is (fortunately) another applicable licence
  It's interesting that FreeBSD doesn't consider it a pressing issue.

whilst acpisrc will take care of inserting the correct license into the source code from the stock acpica source from acpica.org, any fixes in the opensolaris/OI tree would be against the export restricted license version, were does that put us?

Albert Lee wrote:

I think this is technically equivalent to the problem of a missing licence header, because:

It's not though is it, cause the terms are clearly stated at the top of each file.

• If we don't accept the terms of the licence currently in the header, we gain no rights from it, but we aren't bound by its terms

but you cant turn around & say you don't accept the terms of the license then use the code, you need to replace it, right?

Sevan Janiyan wrote:

whilst acpisrc will take care of inserting the correct license into the source code from the stock acpica source from acpica.org, any fixes in the opensolaris/OI tree would be against the export restricted license version, were does that put us?

I'm not aware of any legal difference between using acpisrc and adding the header by hand, so it's probably not okay to use it if the source we have does differ from the stock Intel acpica. If that is the case, we have a problem on our hands. :(

Can be closed as ACPICA update was integrated?