From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Aneesh V Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:46:51 +0530 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] image: add support for Android's boot image format In-Reply-To: <20111123100316.GA6654@linutronix.de> References: <1321884575-2993-1-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <1321884575-2993-2-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20111121201907.64E5D1ADFED2@gemini.denx.de> <20111122123007.GA5755@linutronix.de> <20111122190447.6ADA41FFB395@gemini.denx.de> <20111123100316.GA6654@linutronix.de> Message-ID: <4F153C83.20703@ti.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Dear Wolfgang, On Wednesday 23 November 2011 03:33 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > * Wolfgang Denk | 2011-11-22 20:04:47 [+0100]: > >> Dear Sebastian Andrzej Siewior, >> >> In message<20111122123007.GA5755@linutronix.de> you wrote: >>> >>>>> + * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without >>>>> + * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions >>>>> + * are met: >>>>> + * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright >>>>> + * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. >>>>> + * * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright >>>>> + * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in >>>>> + * the documentation and/or other materials provided with the >>>>> + * distribution. >>>> >>>> Sorry, but this is not GPL compatible. >>> >>> Ehm. Is this the All rights reserved issue? If so then I assumed that I >>> cleared up things in >> >> No, it's the "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce..." >> clause. > > How so? If you distribute it as source nothing changes. I don't see much > difference in binary form either: section 1 of the GPL says > > |.. keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the > |absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a > |copy of this License along with the Program. > > and this is no different. It does not mention whether the software has > to be passed in source or binary form. The BSD part does not push any > restrictions on the GPL, it "wants" the same thing. Section 6 of the GPL > says that by redistributing the receiptient should receive a copy of > this license. The section you mentioed is no different. If you > distribute GPL in binary code you have let the receiptient know, that he > is using GPL code. A note in the documentation is enough as far as I > know [if remeber correctly Harald went after a few companies which were > using Linux and were not letting the customers know about it]. > > If you look at the fresh released Quake3 source [0] you see that there > is a readme file which points out that it is GPL code and enumerates > various other licenses. > > So right now, I don't see why those two should not be compatible. Plus > the FSF claims that they are [1]. > > [0] https://github.com/TTimo/doom3.gpl > [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#FreeBSD What is your final call on this? The above arguments sound convincing to me, but I have to admit that I am no legal expert. Either way, it will be great to have a closure on this. Lack of fastboot support was the greatest impediment to adoption of mainline U-Boot in our previous platforms. It will be really unfortunate if the same happens to OMAP5 that has just arrived. best regards, Aneesh