[U-Boot] [U-boot] fastboot command question

[U-Boot] [U-boot] fastboot command question

[TigerLiu at viatech.com.cn]

Hi, experts:

Why not include cmd_fastboot.c in common directory in 2013.07 release
package?

Because of code license?

Or other reason?

 

Best wishes,

[U-Boot] [U-boot] fastboot command question

[Eric Nelson]

On 08/21/2013 04:30 AM, TigerLiu at viatech.com.cn wrote:
> Hi, experts:
>
> Why not include cmd_fastboot.c in common directory in 2013.07 release
> package?
>
> Because of code license?
>
> Or other reason?
>

Hi Tiger,

You bring up a question we're interested in as well.

It looks to me as if this died somewhere back in April of 2011
with this discussion:

http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-April/thread.html#90983

And a straw-man design document discussed here:
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-April/thread.html/#091597

And a message about licensing in May of 2012:
	http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-May/125304.html

Do we need a clean-room implementation in order to comply with?

Is anybody working either the licensing or implementation of this?

[U-Boot] [U-boot] fastboot command question

[Marek Vasut]

Dear Eric Nelson,

Adding Wolfgang and Tom to CC.

> On 08/21/2013 04:30 AM, TigerLiu at viatech.com.cn wrote:
> > Hi, experts:
> > 
> > Why not include cmd_fastboot.c in common directory in 2013.07 release
> > package?
> > 
> > Because of code license?
> > 
> > Or other reason?
> 
> Hi Tiger,
> 
> You bring up a question we're interested in as well.
> 
> It looks to me as if this died somewhere back in April of 2011
> with this discussion:
> 
> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-April/thread.html#90983
> 
> And a straw-man design document discussed here:
> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-April/thread.html/#091597
> 
> And a message about licensing in May of 2012:
> 	http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-May/125304.html
> 
> Do we need a clean-room implementation in order to comply with?
> 
> Is anybody working either the licensing or implementation of this?

Not that I am aware of, but I did not follow this discussion at all. What is 
fastboot anyway, is that the android thing?

Best regards,
Marek Vasut

[U-Boot] [U-boot] fastboot command question

[TigerLiu at viatech.com.cn]

Hi, Eric :
Based on 2011 maillist, linaro engineers wished to add fastboot feature
into u-boot mainline code base, buf failed.
But, i also could not find cmd_fastboot feature in uboot code base
released by linaro.

For example:
Linaro released uboot form Samsung's Origen board.

Best wishes,

[U-Boot] fastboot command question

[Eric Nelson]

Hi Tiger,

On 08/22/2013 02:52 AM, TigerLiu at viatech.com.cn wrote:
> Hi, Eric :
> Based on 2011 maillist, linaro engineers wished to add fastboot feature
> into u-boot mainline code base, buf failed.
> But, i also could not find cmd_fastboot feature in uboot code base
> released by linaro.
>
Thanks. I saw that.

Linaro has lots of stuff on their plate, and it looks like this
one didn't make the cut.

> For example:
> Linaro released uboot form Samsung's Origen board.
>

Yep. And TI, Freescale, Samsung and others each have fastboot
implementations, each in their own repositories.

This feature has been living around the periphery of U-Boot
for years...

Regards,


Eric

[U-Boot] [U-boot] fastboot command question

[Eric Nelson]

Hi Marek,

On 08/21/2013 10:08 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Eric Nelson,
>
> Adding Wolfgang and Tom to CC.
>
>> On 08/21/2013 04:30 AM, TigerLiu at viatech.com.cn wrote:
>>> Hi, experts:
>>>
>>> Why not include cmd_fastboot.c in common directory in 2013.07 release
>>> package?
>>>
>>> Because of code license?
>>>
>>> Or other reason?
>>
>> Hi Tiger,
>>
>> You bring up a question we're interested in as well.
>>
>> It looks to me as if this died somewhere back in April of 2011
>> with this discussion:
>>
>> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-April/thread.html#90983
>>
>> And a straw-man design document discussed here:
>> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-April/thread.html/#091597
>>
>> And a message about licensing in May of 2012:
>> 	http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-May/125304.html
>>
>> Do we need a clean-room implementation in order to comply with?
>>
>> Is anybody working either the licensing or implementation of this?
>
> Not that I am aware of, but I did not follow this discussion at all. What is
> fastboot anyway, is that the android thing?
>

Yeah. It's the Google/Android equivalent of DFU (plus some additional
features).

Oddly, it has little to do with booting and isn't particularly fast ;)

Regards,


Eric

[U-Boot] [U-boot] fastboot command question

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 05:30:52PM -0700, Eric Nelson wrote:
> On 08/21/2013 04:30 AM, TigerLiu at viatech.com.cn wrote:
> >Hi, experts:
> >
> >Why not include cmd_fastboot.c in common directory in 2013.07 release
> >package?
> >
> >Because of code license?
> >
> >Or other reason?
> >
> 
> Hi Tiger,
> 
> You bring up a question we're interested in as well.
> 
> It looks to me as if this died somewhere back in April of 2011
> with this discussion:
> 
> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-April/thread.html#90983
> 
> And a straw-man design document discussed here:
> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-April/thread.html/#091597
> 
> And a message about licensing in May of 2012:
> 	http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-May/125304.html
> 
> Do we need a clean-room implementation in order to comply with?
> 
> Is anybody working either the licensing or implementation of this?

So, putting my TI hat on, I've poked one of our legal teams about one of
the fastboot versions we've done (the shove everything into
cmd_fastboot.c one, which I don't like as much as the split up ones,
but, that's a technical thing not a license thing) to see if there's any
problems or not.

Historically, Wolfgang objected, roughly, on the grounds of "great, Yet
Another Standard by Bigcompany forcing things on us".  Which I can
understand, but frankly, it's more of an ABI than some of the "funny"
things Android did within the kernel, so I'm willing to live with it,
so long as the implementation is done well, and there's no legal
hurdles.  In fact, http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/126797/ was "looks
legally fine, needs technical changes".

-- 
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/20130822/fe67055e/attachment.pgp>

[U-Boot] [U-boot] fastboot command question

[Eric Nelson]

Thanks Tom,

On 08/22/2013 06:59 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 05:30:52PM -0700, Eric Nelson wrote:
>> On 08/21/2013 04:30 AM, TigerLiu at viatech.com.cn wrote:
>>> Hi, experts:
>>>
>>> Why not include cmd_fastboot.c in common directory in 2013.07 release
>>> package?
>>>
>>> Because of code license?
>>>
>>> Or other reason?
>>>
>>
 >> <snip>
>>
>> Do we need a clean-room implementation in order to comply with?
>>
>> Is anybody working either the licensing or implementation of this?
>
> So, putting my TI hat on, I've poked one of our legal teams about one of
> the fastboot versions we've done (the shove everything into
> cmd_fastboot.c one, which I don't like as much as the split up ones,
> but, that's a technical thing not a license thing) to see if there's any
> problems or not.
>
> Historically, Wolfgang objected, roughly, on the grounds of "great, Yet
> Another Standard by Bigcompany forcing things on us".  Which I can
> understand, but frankly, it's more of an ABI than some of the "funny"
> things Android did within the kernel, so I'm willing to live with it,
> so long as the implementation is done well, and there's no legal
> hurdles.

Customers using Android ask for fastboot support, and this isn't
a lot of code, so it seems worth pursuing IMHO.

 > In fact, http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/126797/ was "looks
> legally fine, needs technical changes".
>

Hmmm. I missed this.

The only remaining objection seems to have been the commit
message and attribution of the original source.

I'm CC'ing Aneesh to see if he can provide any guidance.

Regards,


Eric

[U-Boot] [U-boot] fastboot command question

[Tom Rini]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08/22/2013 10:30 AM, Eric Nelson wrote:
> Thanks Tom,
> 
> On 08/22/2013 06:59 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 05:30:52PM -0700, Eric Nelson wrote:
>>> On 08/21/2013 04:30 AM, TigerLiu at viatech.com.cn wrote:
>>>> Hi, experts:
>>>> 
>>>> Why not include cmd_fastboot.c in common directory in 2013.07
>>>> release package?
>>>> 
>>>> Because of code license?
>>>> 
>>>> Or other reason?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> <snip>
>>> 
>>> Do we need a clean-room implementation in order to comply
>>> with?
>>> 
>>> Is anybody working either the licensing or implementation of
>>> this?
>> 
>> So, putting my TI hat on, I've poked one of our legal teams about
>> one of the fastboot versions we've done (the shove everything
>> into cmd_fastboot.c one, which I don't like as much as the split
>> up ones, but, that's a technical thing not a license thing) to
>> see if there's any problems or not.
>> 
>> Historically, Wolfgang objected, roughly, on the grounds of
>> "great, Yet Another Standard by Bigcompany forcing things on us".
>> Which I can understand, but frankly, it's more of an ABI than
>> some of the "funny" things Android did within the kernel, so I'm
>> willing to live with it, so long as the implementation is done
>> well, and there's no legal hurdles.
> 
> Customers using Android ask for fastboot support, and this isn't a
> lot of code, so it seems worth pursuing IMHO.
> 
>> In fact, http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/126797/ was "looks 
>> legally fine, needs technical changes".
>> 
> 
> Hmmm. I missed this.
> 
> The only remaining objection seems to have been the commit message
> and attribution of the original source.
> 
> I'm CC'ing Aneesh to see if he can provide any guidance.

He was another one of the folks looking to get things merged back
then, and I don't think has time for it now.

- -- 
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=k7wo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[U-Boot] [U-boot] fastboot command question

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 07:30:15PM +0800, TigerLiu at viatech.com.cn wrote:

> Hi, experts:
> 
> Why not include cmd_fastboot.c in common directory in 2013.07 release
> package?
> 
> Because of code license?
> 
> Or other reason?

It's technical reasons.  I pointed our legal folks at:
https://gitorious.org/rowboat/u-boot/blobs/am335x-master-android-ics/common/cmd_fastboot.c
as an example of the question about licenses, and the answer is:

"Yeah, this is an example of why I don't like mixing licensing in a
file. It gets confusing. Here is the way I read it:

This file is GPLv2+ but contains BSD code. The only restriction is
really on the BSD portion. Normally BSD would allow you to release
object only and not have to provide the source. As there is a GPLv2
header on it the source would have to be provided. The + on the GPL
really has no effect on the file per se.

I would say the license of this file is GPLv2+ and 2 Clause BSD like you
said. Seems OK as long as you are using it somewhere where using GPL is
OK with you.."

So, if someone would like to take one of the "fastboot" implementations
that is GPLv2 and 2 Clause BSD and make it clean enough to merge, I'd be
quite happy to review and get it in.

-- 
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/20130822/19de7688/attachment.pgp>