From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:02:56 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] [U-boot] fastboot command question In-Reply-To: <52162087.60909@boundarydevices.com> References: <52155BBC.3040307@boundarydevices.com> <20130822135930.GK2644@bill-the-cat> <52162087.60909@boundarydevices.com> Message-ID: <52162820.6080802@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 -----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? >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSFigfAAoJENk4IS6UOR1WEhUQAKY2G2UydtSdsfCGHSlemAxq AOWuNVIdDF4SgKfHbEQROvJHJsyjiqE801frHhF8dklj0bcIvzTCNaVxa/NN3Nhl Czg6kz11KGhbhgOzHA2LiMneowzPeINhyvQqnRaB8993LNhRNNS66kkVAfKeg8Gq U/ju4nu+pbYVsz6MOyer3iai02x3QuG09ATx/k2Wt7yl1/euIWVwmUaH6LoLheLN tILoXMewRPzqG9wS2BirP9dui846gAmQabNv0dpOV3u+weCsf5NKLHoJnw/K92RL KVZiig9RTB9xQr6Rct+9rd1145LVWhZMz5Joo2ZEm07qfkGxNMhtAHf5TsioPEoZ /pMZz1QdG3WsJvgqkbZShS/Vtx1aSVy7BgxjTXyvczqJgL/CtSiuMfBryBJu+SQm 9HnR0SiYdi7m22pcrErRZ99a3xTYVILGkn/93ezXkk2yfFQVxUcKcaYTdRdcOKtB TY8EYU6sp5IjdB36BWuuS0SKvJERK0g0yjmhVLgwtKDBqd944qjfc/JmHC3yuej6 tr56s/Xo+4oDEAzLkFQy8pfCULjV6yq5XPxhQCdMeQq+oySD62lVyljs9KycEbmE QNvtb0E7ZdLdlXxEcCx4bITFvv4x7PB+w0sWsHEs7Y3eigaUNT++krLjDBukGKPo 7VAlANsrceaEppRrKERn =k7wo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----