From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Aneesh V Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:58:08 +0530 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] image: add support for Android's boot image format In-Reply-To: <4F153C83.20703@ti.com> 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> <4F153C83.20703@ti.com> Message-ID: <4F2A5728.3090405@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 Tuesday 17 January 2012 02:46 PM, Aneesh V wrote: > 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. Ping. br, Aneesh