Re: Patch Licensing Terms

["szbnwer@..." <szbnwer@...>]

hi all! :)


thx for the interesting materies, im also interested in the very same
stuffs as these! :)

ive heard that one can double license or relicense their product, but
im not sure if its true or it have any requirements different than
what was at the beginning - so ive interpreted this as i can use gpl
and then give mit for the upstreams for the needed parts, but the
whole would "downgrade" the gpl... and for sure only if ive made it
gpl without include gpl code from any other project

putting together gpl with other (and compatible) stuffs makes the
other stuffs gpl as well but what about (lets say) use luakit (gpl)
write a library that is exclusively used with it but not strictly
related so not calling anything from it but luakit using it and its
kinda related to browsing but could be freestanding... - if its in its
own file then i can simply give it an mit?

what about linux, that is under gpl if im right, and there are apps
with various licenses above it that are calling the kernel? its just a
well separated unit?

sorry if this one is bullshit, but ive heard that one can run a gpl
(or what else?) stuff on bsd but not vice versa, or what is the point
where incompatibility of allowing/declining binary distribution blocks
the road?


and yes, id also like to make an alpha release in a closed circle with
additional licenses, and im also afraid of evil guys out there that
will poison my stuffs with the wrong aims and contents and contexts
and whatever; take away control with money and big teams or just see
how the little important pieces working and simply reimplement them in
an another language and do anything wrong and take away the possible
users and put them on a different platform like win or mac that are
basically wrong cuz the closed source and their licenses and i wont
ever move on those platforms..... much creepy visions and so much
plans that takes the same funds and same path as ive imagined for the
right result...

in this case could i simply delete the additional licences? however
its kinda nothing after one seen the basics, licenses can be bypassed,
shared ideas with accordance and opened beneficial pathways* can
probably do more... *: i mean stuff like not sell or publicate
anything built upon, but can be used for one's own good or for backend
purposes before time for publicity can come...


for the intel me, i could suggest you (and anyone) to search for 'me
cleaner' on github for erasing an possibly neutralizing it, this
supports the most machines if im right; libreboot (completely?
deblobbed replacement, you can find there compatible machines and
shops for preinstalled machines - its not a bad idea, cuz motherboard
can be bricked like a phone during flashing); and coreboot which is
the upstream of libreboot but with blobs and with wiki and a mailing
list, it can be used on a much wider range of computers - most likely
you will find what you want on this journey, id suggest you to do a
research as its a very hardcore topic, and then you may go to the
coreboot mailing list. ('bad usb' is an another good search term to
start research for much interesting stuffs)

i didnt really got your aim, if im right its the question that intel
uefi uses lua or not, but intel forbids revengineering and stuffs,
however core-/libreboot folks probably relaying on that, but cuz the
intel license it can be hard to talk about these, and im following
whats going on there, intel refusing most of the help for them and
there is a deep opposition between them ... additionally they are
helpful as i couldnt learn much deep stuffs from there without that,
but its very hard to follow them, cuz there are dragons all around
there, you will see it :D


thx for the much useful stuff again, just as well as any answer for my
questions, and good luck with the firmware rabbit's hole! :)