Chris Zimman wrote: >> RedBoot already had a startup banner. U-boot has never had one I >> believe. > > It depends on what you call a startup banner. I personally don't mind name > of prog and copyright, > but anything beyond that non-technical is just unwanted cruft as far as I go. > >> Maybe it might have been different if RedBoot hadn't had such a banner at > the point it was GPL'd. > > It has a fairly minimal banner as it stands right now. > > Something like: > > " > RedBoot(tm) bootstrap and debug environment [ROMRAM] > Copyright (C) 2000-2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > Platform: PLATFORM NAME (ARM9) > RAM: 0x00000000-0x00800000, [0x0002fcc8-0x007dd000] available > FLASH: 0x04000000-0x041fffff, 4 x 0x8000 blocks, 126 x 0x20000 blocks > > RedBoot> > " > > ...would be lovely as far as I'm concerned. I would vote for doing away with > the 'certified'/'non-certified' thing as well, > since it's meaningless in practice to most people.
Agreed. It's a Red Hat hangover. >> I don't think it's a bad thing for users to be aware of RedBoot's licence >> anyway. If anyone was worried about read-only data (not RAM) footprint, >> there are probably many other areas of memory footprint that deserve >> attention, and you probably wouldn't want to use something as >> all-encompassing as RedBoot in any case ;). > > OK but just to be clear, as far as I can tell right now, you guys are just > adding this because you > feel like it versus their being an actual requirement for having done so. I would /like/ it to say it's got the eCos GPL derivative, but I believe it would be a requirement to comply with 2(c) of the GPL, which implies more than that. > Certainly for myself, the consideration is not the memory footprint, it's the > fact that something > redundant is being added to the startup. Anyone who wants to see the details > of the license > can very easily go look at the GPL. I don't necessarily need to be reminded > of it every time the platform starts. Actually I don't like the verbosity myself either, you seem to be thinking I do :-). An alternative is to shove some of this into the 'version' command specifically so that while a manual invocation of the version command is more verbose, the banner isn't in which case the banner could be e.g. with Sergei's example: RedBoot(tm) bootstrap and debug environment [ROM] Version UNKNOWN - built 12:06:17, Feb 2 2009 Copyright (C) 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc. RedBoot is free software. Type 'version' for license and warranty terms. Platform: Olimex LPC-H2294 header board (ARM7TDMI-S) RAM: 0x81000000-0x81100000, [0x81005900-0x810e1000] available FLASH: 0x80000000-0x803fffff, 8 x 0x2000 blocks, 63 x 0x10000 blocks RedBoot> I don't think this is strictly compliant with 2(c) in the letter, but it is in the spirit and I don't have an issue with it. Ok compromise? Jifl -- eCosCentric Limited http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos experts Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 1223 245571 Registered in England and Wales: Reg No 4422071. ------["Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere"]------ Opinions==mine -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
