[U-Boot] u-boot-v2 and GPL license version?

[U-Boot] u-boot-v2 and GPL license version?

[Kumar Gala]

Sascha,

You seem to be the person acting as maintainer of u-boot-v2.  Do you  
have any input if u-boot-v2 would stay with GPLv2 or move to GPLv3?

- k

[U-Boot] u-boot-v2 and GPL license version?

[Jerry Van Baren]

Kumar Gala wrote:
> Sascha,
> 
> You seem to be the person acting as maintainer of u-boot-v2.  Do you  
> have any input if u-boot-v2 would stay with GPLv2 or move to GPLv3?
> 
> - k

U-Boot v2 is the usage case I had in mind in my question:
> 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? 
<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/61801/focus=62886>

RMS' opinion was that this approach could be taken WRT GPLv3 of the 
U-Boot core and allow GPLv2 plug-ins, preferably via an explicit 
exception.  He was also OK with the concept from an ethical point of view.
<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/61801/focus=62920>

If we took that approach, it would probably allow TiVoisation - maybe we 
could craft the GPLv3 s/w to prevent add-on modules from TiVoing the 
whole, but I think that would be difficult... if GPLv2 modules are added 
and initialized at start up time, it would be pretty hard to prevent a 
TiVo module from locking down the whole.

Since the primary point of going to GPLv3 is anti-TiVoism and the 
primary (only?) argument against going to GPLv3 is to allow TiVoism, 
from that point of view the GPLv3/GPLv2-plugin combination is a failure.[1]

Wolfgang's last word was pretty adamant about taking U-Boot to GPLv3.  I 
see the U-Boot v2 GPLv3/GPLv2-plugin technique as a way to take the core 
to GPLv3 without "needlessly" re-writing the parts we've borrowed from 
linux (in fact, it encourages borrowing from linux, which is a Good 
Thing[tm]).

Best regards,
gvb

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_Kings#Accession_of_Solomon>
"Two prostitutes come to Solomon and ask him to settle an argument 
between them as to who is the mother of a particular baby. Solomon asks 
for a sword to cut the baby in half to be split between the two women. 
When the first prostitute tells him to give the baby to the other rather 
than kill it she proves herself to be the mother with her love for the 
child. Solomon gives her the baby."

[U-Boot] u-boot-v2 and GPL license version?

[Detlev Zundel]

Hi Jerry,

> Kumar Gala wrote:
>> Sascha,
>> 
>> You seem to be the person acting as maintainer of u-boot-v2.  Do you  
>> have any input if u-boot-v2 would stay with GPLv2 or move to GPLv3?
>> 
>> - k
>
> U-Boot v2 is the usage case I had in mind in my question:
>> 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? 
> <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/61801/focus=62886>
>
> RMS' opinion was that this approach could be taken WRT GPLv3 of the 
> U-Boot core and allow GPLv2 plug-ins, preferably via an explicit 
> exception.  He was also OK with the concept from an ethical point of view.
> <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/61801/focus=62920>

Don't forget that RMS also noted that this case also needs the exception
on the GPLv2 only code to be used in conjunction with GPLv3.

> If we took that approach, it would probably allow TiVoisation - maybe we 
> could craft the GPLv3 s/w to prevent add-on modules from TiVoing the 
> whole, but I think that would be difficult... if GPLv2 modules are added 
> and initialized at start up time, it would be pretty hard to prevent a 
> TiVo module from locking down the whole.
>
> Since the primary point of going to GPLv3 is anti-TiVoism and the 
> primary (only?) argument against going to GPLv3 is to allow TiVoism, 
> from that point of view the GPLv3/GPLv2-plugin combination is a failure.[1]

Indeed.

> Wolfgang's last word was pretty adamant about taking U-Boot to GPLv3.  I 
> see the U-Boot v2 GPLv3/GPLv2-plugin technique as a way to take the core 
> to GPLv3 without "needlessly" re-writing the parts we've borrowed from 
> linux (in fact, it encourages borrowing from linux, which is a Good 
> Thing[tm]).

Asking Linux authors to license their code as GPLv2+ is also an option.
Incidentally drivers/rtc-bfin.c is one example of "GPL-2 or later" in
the Linux tree.

Cheers
  Detlev

-- 
The only use I can find for vi is editing the emacs sources while
porting them to a new machine.
                                        -- Larry Campbell
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich,  Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-40 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: dzu at denx.de

[U-Boot] u-boot-v2 and GPL license version?

[Jerry Van Baren]

Detlev Zundel wrote:
> Hi Jerry,
> 
>> Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> Sascha,
>>>
>>> You seem to be the person acting as maintainer of u-boot-v2.  Do you  
>>> have any input if u-boot-v2 would stay with GPLv2 or move to GPLv3?
>>>
>>> - k
>> U-Boot v2 is the usage case I had in mind in my question:
>>> 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? 
>> <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/61801/focus=62886>
>>
>> RMS' opinion was that this approach could be taken WRT GPLv3 of the 
>> U-Boot core and allow GPLv2 plug-ins, preferably via an explicit 
>> exception.  He was also OK with the concept from an ethical point of view.
>> <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/61801/focus=62920>
> 
> Don't forget that RMS also noted that this case also needs the exception
> on the GPLv2 only code to be used in conjunction with GPLv3.

Oops, I /had/ forgotten that.  That puts a pretty big pothole in that 
road.  :-/

Best case, we would still have to contact all the authors of GPLv2 
drivers and convince them to change their copyright licensing.  Worst 
case, some wouldn't agree to the license change and we would have to 
rewrite their code, resulting in no net gain.

> Cheers
>   Detlev

Thanks,
gvb

[U-Boot] u-boot-v2 and GPL license version?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 09 July 2009 07:21:16 Detlev Zundel wrote:
> > Wolfgang's last word was pretty adamant about taking U-Boot to GPLv3.  I
> > see the U-Boot v2 GPLv3/GPLv2-plugin technique as a way to take the core
> > to GPLv3 without "needlessly" re-writing the parts we've borrowed from
> > linux (in fact, it encourages borrowing from linux, which is a Good
> > Thing[tm]).
>
> Asking Linux authors to license their code as GPLv2+ is also an option.
> Incidentally drivers/rtc-bfin.c is one example of "GPL-2 or later" in
> the Linux tree.

the Blackfin code has been licensed under "GPLv2 or later only" as a courtesy.  
we dont care what other people do with it so long as the places where we have 
to maintain it stay GPLv2.  apparently this was naive of us wrt u-boot.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20090709/6cf3758f/attachment.pgp 

[U-Boot] u-boot-v2 and GPL license version?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 08 July 2009 13:48:44 Kumar Gala wrote:
> You seem to be the person acting as maintainer of u-boot-v2.  Do you
> have any input if u-boot-v2 would stay with GPLv2 or move to GPLv3?

i asked him offlist and he said:
"I don't plan to switch U-Boot-v2 to GPL V3."
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20090708/d0366086/attachment.pgp