[U-Boot] U-book and GPLv3?

[Jerry Van Baren <gerald.vanbaren@ge.com>]

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Richard,
> 
> In message <E1MHHUe-00046l-SR@fencepost.gnu.org> you wrote:
>> Have you considered moving U-boot to "GPLv3-or-later"?

[snip]

> So it seems we can set up something like a plan:
> 
> Short term goal:
> 
>         Clean up the existing license conflicts in U-Boot. This is  a
>         task that is completely independent of the GPLv2 versus GPLv3
>         discussion - it must be done in any case.
> 
> Medium term goal:
> 
>         Analyze which parts of U-Boot are implemented  by  GPLv2-only
>         code, and evaluate options to convert these into GPLv2+later.

 From what I saw, most of the GPLv2-only code was from the linux drivers 
that we've adopted and adapted.

Observations:
1) U-Boot v2 is taking the approach of plug-in drivers to allow U-Boot 
to use the linux drivers directly.

2) While it is controversial, there is a long established precedent in 
the linux kernel that loadable modules with GPLv2-only incompatible 
licenses are acceptable.

3) U-Boot currently has an explicit license to run "stand alone 
applications" that have a GPL-incompatible license.

Questions:
Would U-Boot be willing to have as much GPLv2++ (GPLv3) as possible, and 
supporting a run time plug-in system to accommodate GPLv2-only modules? 
  If we accommodate GPLv2-only modules, will we allow proprietary 
modules? Depending on what we accept and how, proprietary modules may be 
allowed as a side effect of allowing GPLv2 modules - is that a problem?

Note that drivers are not the only potentially modular item - if we 
redid the command handler #defines and some glue code, I believe we 
could easily change the commands to being plug-in as well.

Richard, Wolfgang, U-Boot List, how do you view a "loadable module 
loophole" fitting in with GPLv3
(a) legally and
(b) philosophically?

[snip]

> Thanks a lot, Richard, for bringing up this topic.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Wolfgang Denk

Thanks,
gvb