From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Zeffertt Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:56:41 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] GPL 2 "or later" concern In-Reply-To: <450FCA70.3060809@warmcat.com> References: <450EDFD0.5060806@warmcat.com> <450FB804.7080601@cambridgebroadband.com> <450FCA70.3060809@warmcat.com> Message-ID: <450FE909.1060504@cambridgebroadband.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Andy Green wrote: > > Because the hardware is fixed, and the special nature of what U-boot > does, a workaround for me might be to never update U-boot, but obviously > that is less than fully desirable. That way we ship U-boot in the > flash, provide sources for it, but never distribute a signed update > avoiding the proposed potential problem. > I know this doesn't relate to your original question about licences, but it would seem to me that distributing u-boot updates is *very* risky. One slip and every customer could be sending you back dead units in the post. If you make sure before you sell that u-boot can boot a kernel, and upgrade the kernel (without assuming a working kernel is present) you won't need to support u-boot upgrades. Alex