[U-Boot-Users] Proposal for a make option to include an additional stand alone program directory

[Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com>]

Wolfgang Denk wrote:

I really don't want to be arguing the GPL, but I am interested in a technical solution to 
a problem that is also legally permissible.

> Merging two binaries into one, so that A can make function calls into
> B *is* linking if the function of A depends on  the  results  of  the
> function calls of B.

How do you determine "depends"?  If B enables the 2nd Ethernet port, but you never 
actually use it, then A doesn't really depend on B.  Takes these two scenarios:

1) U-Boot runs the binary application that enables Ethernet 2, but it doesn't load the 
driver for Ethernet 2.  Therefore, the functioning of U-Boot does not depend on the binary.

1) U-Boot runs the binary application that enables Ethernet 2, and it loads the driver for 
Ethernet 2.  Therefore, the U-Boot can do Ethernet I/O on this device.

By your definition, scenario #1 is not a GPL violation, but scenario #2 is.  So I can 
merge my closed-source proprietary binary in with GPL as long as I don't enabled the 2nd 
Ethernet port.

> Linux system calls is an explicitely exported interface so it  is  OK
> to use this from application code.

So it's okay for a non-GPL binary to call GPL code, but not the other way around?

> Please do yourself a favour and re-read the GPL.

I don't think just reading the GPL is enough to understand it.  Some parts of it are 
vague, and their interpretations are debatable.

-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale