[U-Boot] U-book and GPLv3? (fwd)

[Detlev Zundel <dzu@denx.de>]

Hi Scott,

> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:09:49AM +0200, Detlev Zundel wrote:
>> > nand_ecc.c is an exception, which not only has the "or later" language
>> > but also has an exception that makes it non-viral.
>> 
>> Why do you refer to one of the most important aspects of the
>> effectiveness of the GPL as being viral?  GPLd software neither attacks
>> nor infects software so the wording is actively misleading.
>
> I was referring to the "if you link me in, the entire project must be under
> my terms" clause.  

For sure I know what you meant, but the term "virus" has a mental
baggage way too big.  I believe a metaphor only to be helpful if the
attached concepts shed new light on the "target domain", but this
is simply not the case here.

Of course I cannot forbid your using the word, but one should point out
that the connotations are misleading.

>> > Regardless of what motivates it, people who sell hardware to such
>> > customers (and who also contribute to u-boot) may not want to risk losing
>> > that business by pushing GPLv3 on them.
>> 
>> Actually I want to understand why people fear to "loose business" with
>> GPLv3.  What is the exact scenario that is so threatening?  Unless this
>> is understood, it is hard to argue in any way.
>
> U-boot contributor A wants to sell hardware to customer B, who wants secure
> boot, or for any other reason does not want to involve themselves in GPL3. 
> I'm not going to provide names, but this is not hypothetical.  If nobody
> wanted to do the things that GPLv3 prevents, there wouldn't be a GPLv3. :-)

Actually I was trying to get more information about what those "things
that GPLv3" prevents and customers want are - and what business model
they are a part of.

It may come as a surprise, but I believe that the percentage of boards
supported by U-Boot which are used in such scenarios is pretty small.
Likely many of the newly added boards will fall into this category, but
from the hundreds already supported not many will even care.

To get a better impression about this ratio should also be an important point
in this discussion.

> U-boot goes GPLv3.  A has a choice to continue developing on mainline
> u-boot, in which case one of these happens:
>
> 1. A develops *another* bootloader in parallel (possibly based on old GPLv2
> u-boot) for customer B,
> 2. B develops (or acquires) their own firmware, or
> 3. B buys hardware from someone else who provides non-GPL3 firmware.
>
> #2 seems unlikely if #3 is a reasonable option -- and if A is going to do
> #1, why wouldn't they develop *only* that non-GPL3 firmware if it is a
> superset of usefulness to A (who doesn't particularly care about the GPL3
> agenda)?  In other words, a fork.

It is good to actually get more concrete here, but I was really after
the original motiviation of people avoiding GPLv3.

Thanks
  Detlev

-- 
The limits of my language stand for the limits of my world.
                                        -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich,  Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-40 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: dzu at denx.de