[U-Boot] U-book and GPLv3?

Jerry Van Baren
2009-07-06T15:44:21Z

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Richard,
>
> In message <E1MHHUe-00046l-SR@fencepost.gnu.org> you wrote:
>> Have you considered moving U-boot to "GPLv3-or-later"?

[snip]

> So it seems we can set up something like a plan:
>
> Short term goal:
>
> Clean up the existing license conflicts in U-Boot. This is a
> task that is completely independent of the GPLv2 versus GPLv3
> discussion - it must be done in any case.
>
> Medium term goal:
>
> Analyze which parts of U-Boot are implemented by GPLv2-only
> code, and evaluate options to convert these into GPLv2+later.

From what I saw, most of the GPLv2-only code was from the linux drivers
that we've adopted and adapted.

Observations:
1) U-Boot v2 is taking the approach of plug-in drivers to allow U-Boot
to use the linux drivers directly.

2) While it is controversial, there is a long established precedent in
the linux kernel that loadable modules with GPLv2-only incompatible
licenses are acceptable.

3) U-Boot currently has an explicit license to run "stand alone
applications" that have a GPL-incompatible license.

Questions:
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?
If we accommodate GPLv2-only modules, will we allow proprietary
modules? Depending on what we accept and how, proprietary modules may be
allowed as a side effect of allowing GPLv2 modules - is that a problem?

Note that drivers are not the only potentially modular item - if we
redid the command handler #defines and some glue code, I believe we
could easily change the commands to being plug-in as well.

Richard, Wolfgang, U-Boot List, how do you view a "loadable module
loophole" fitting in with GPLv3
(a) legally and
(b) philosophically?

[snip]

> Thanks a lot, Richard, for bringing up this topic.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk

Thanks,
gvb