On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 06:33:53PM +0200, Detlev Zundel wrote: > Also this is one of the objections worded on the mailing list, namely > that such a cooperation will be impossible in the future if U-Boot moves > to GPLv3. > > As a base for reasonable discussion, I think we need to evaluate those > claims and back them up by actual figures. Only then the real effort > needed to move and the potential loss of "code immigration" can be > estimated.
The NAND subsystem is from Linux and is GPL v2 only, as is the u-boot-specific NAND code in drivers/mtd/nand. nand_ecc.c is an exception, which not only has the "or later" language but also has an exception that makes it non-viral. env_nand.c is v2-or-later. cmd_nand.c has no explicit license. In summary: If you switch to v3, you lose much of NAND. Unless RMS volunteers to rewrite it. :-) > > Is there any chance of convincing those authors to change that? > > Apart from the the above reasons, currently most people who voiced their > opinion (not too many right now) oppose the move. The reasoning seems > to be that companies using U-Boot inside a commercial product consider > it to be "a neccessary precondition to only accept blessed firmware > upgrades" (my wording). What motivates this argument is not completely > clear to me. Maybe it is fear of being liable as a product vendor to > faulty sw upgrades. 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. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot