[U-Boot] [PATCH v5 0/4] Implement "fastboot flash" for eMMC

[Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 09:04:09AM +0200, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On 14-08-26 02:14 AM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > > Hi Steve,
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 14-08-25 07:57 AM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > >>> Hi Steve,
> > >>>
> > >>>> This series implements the "fastboot flash" command for eMMC
> > >>>> devices. It supports both raw and sparse images.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> NOTES:
> > >>>> - the support for the "fastboot flash" command is enabled with
> > >>>> CONFIG_FASTBOOT_FLASH
> > >>>> - the support for eMMC is enabled with
> > >>>> CONFIG_FASTBOOT_FLASH_MMC_DEV
> > >>>> - (future) the support for NAND would be enabled with
> > >>>> CONFIG_FASTBOOT_FLASH_NAND(???)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This has been tested on ARMv7.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ----
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This series depends on:
> > >>>>     http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/379438/
> > >>>
> > >>> This patch is already applied.
> > >> Correct
> > >> (But it wasn't when I was preparing this....)
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>>     http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/382443/ (to 382446)
> > >>>
> > >>> Could you resend the above patch series one more time?
> > >>>
> > >>>   From the links it seems that in PATCH 1/4 you add
> > >>> the ./common/aboot.c file and at PATCH 2/4 you remove it.
> > >>>
> > >>> Is this done on purpose?
> > >> yes: done on purpose (in order to see the history of the changes to
> > >> the file....) -- see the comments in the cover letter to that
> > >> patch-series!!!
> > >
> > > Ok, Now it is clear.
> > >
> > > Is fair as I know bsd-3L-clause license is compatible with GPL.
> > >
> > > However, to be 100% sure I'd like to ask Tom (as he has much more
> > > legal experience than me) to confirm that this code can be added to
> > > u-boot.
> > >
> > OK -- note that this "bsd-3L-clause" clause is almost identical to
> > the existing "bsd-3-clause"....
> 
> Tom, could you give your opinion on this?

So, upstream made a slight (and likely unintentional) change to the
normal BSD 3 clause license and changed the last clause from "the
copyright holders" to "The Linux Foundation".  I've poked our legal dept
about this but I suspect the best answer is to go back up to Android
folks and ask them to fix this quite likely unintentional change.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20140828/0cd7bf76/attachment.pgp>