* [U-Boot] Mainline u-boot on socfpga (SocKit) board
2014-05-08 10:28 ` Chin Liang See
@ 2014-05-08 18:20 ` Wolfgang Denk
2014-05-12 10:25 ` Pavel Machek
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Denk @ 2014-05-08 18:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Dear Chin Liang See,
In message <1399544922.2064.19.camel@clsee-VirtualBox.altera.com> you wrote:
>
> But nevertheless, it poses another challenge when come to license. The
> driver is currently licensed under BSD-3 clause. Wonder can we upstream
> BSD-3 clause code? Any advise would be appreciated.
It's your code, so why can't you relicense it under GPL? Why was it
not licensed under GPL from the beginning when it'sbeen written for
U-Boot?
Technically, the "original BSD license, modified by removal of the
advertising clause" (sometimes referred to as the "3-clause BSD
license") is considered to be compatible with the GNU GPL.
Best regards,
Viele Gr??e,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
"Spock, did you see the looks on their faces?"
"Yes, Captain, a sort of vacant contentment."
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] Mainline u-boot on socfpga (SocKit) board
2014-05-08 10:28 ` Chin Liang See
2014-05-08 18:20 ` Wolfgang Denk
@ 2014-05-12 10:25 ` Pavel Machek
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2014-05-12 10:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Hi!
> > I know that mainline U-Boot SPL is quite far from working on
> > socfpga... but would like to ask, what is the status of U-Boot
> > proper. That should work on socfpga, right? Or are there some pieces
> > missing?
> >
> > I tried
> >
> > commit 173d294b94cfec10063a5be40934d6d8fb7981ce
> > Merge: 33b0f7b 870e0bd
> > Author: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
> > Date: Tue May 6 14:55:45 2014 -0400
> >
> > Merge branch 'serial' of git://www.denx.de/git/u-boot-microblaze
> >
> > and it just dies with no output.
> >
> > I'd really like to get something close to mainline working, so that I
> > can generate patches etc.
> >
>
> The missing piece here is the SDRAM driver. This is a big piece as
> U-boot require the SDRAM to run. As of now, I am enhancing the existing
> SDRAM drivers to ensure its compliance with the coding standard.
I know about missing SDRAM driver, but that is in u-boot-spl, not
u-boot (right?). I know u-boot-spl is not feasible right now, but I'd
like to get at least u-boot proper to work. Is that something else
that is known to be missing?
> But nevertheless, it poses another challenge when come to license. The
> driver is currently licensed under BSD-3 clause. Wonder can we upstream
> BSD-3 clause code? Any advise would be appreciated.
So: You are copyright holders, you can change the license. (Right?)
Second, it seems that BSD-3 clause is actually GPL-compatible:
Best regards,
Pavel
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
Modified BSD license (#ModifiedBSD)
This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the
advertising clause. It is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software
license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD license.
The modified BSD license is not bad, as lax permissive licenses go,
though the Apache 2.0 license is preferable. However, it is risky to
recommend use of ?the BSD license?, even for special cases such as
small programs, because confusion could easily occur and lead to use
of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can
suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the modified
revised BSD license are more or less equivalent.
However, the Apache 2.0 license is better for substantial programs,
since it prevents patent treachery.
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread