From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ulf Samuelsson Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:52:44 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Proposal for a make option to include an additional stand alone program directory References: <20070426200559.1E528353414@atlas.denx.de> <463106E6.20203@freescale.com> Message-ID: <00ed01c78845$19bbd690$01c4af0a@Glamdring> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de ----- Original Message ----- From: "Timur Tabi" To: "Wolfgang Denk" Cc: ; "Jeff Mann" Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] Proposal for a make option to include an additional stand alone program directory > Wolfgang Denk wrote: > >> You cannot link non-GPL code into U-Boot. > > What if I use mkimage to merge u-boot.bin with proprietaryfirmware.bin? > > If that doesn't work, what if I burn u-boot.bin into flash at some > location, and then burn > proprietaryfirmware.bin into flash at another location, and then I create > an an image file > by copying all of flash? > > It depends on how you define linking. I would say that taking two > binaries, one from GPL > code and one from non-GPL code, and just merging them into another binary, > that cannot be > a GPL violation. > If combining U-Boot with the switch binary results in that you can tftp from any of the 5 ports , and this is not possible without combining with the binary, then you are most likely violating the GPL. If your version of u-boot has any knowledge about program locations within the closed binary, or vice versa, then you are most likely violating the GPL. If u-boot is used to start your closed binary, then you are IMO, not violating GPL. Best Regards Ulf Samuelsson