On Wednesday 24 June 2009 05:12:01 Detlev Zundel wrote: > > On Tuesday 23 June 2009 15:26:35 Scott Wood wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 06:33:53PM +0200, Detlev Zundel wrote: > >> > 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. > > > > indeed. expecting businesses to push other peoples' agenda isnt > > realistic, especially when the conversation is pretty much a net customer > > loss for said businesses. > > It seems so clear for you, but it isn't for me - where is this net loss > for them, what exactly do they loose? > > > customers arent going to appear because your business is now pushing > > GPLv3 instead of GPLv2, but they will certainly disappear. > > Why will they disappear?
if you want to push your agenda on your customers (i'm assuming you actually have some and arent just here for fun), that's your business. but when customers absolutely state their requirements are secure boot and the ability to lock their hardware so no one else can run things, then i'm not about to argue with them. their response is simply "fine, we'll move on to the next guy who will satisfy our requirements". they arent generally trying to lock out people who just want to toy, they're targeting people who want to clone their hardware or functionality to create knockoffs or they're trying to guarantee lock down so they can get certified (like medical devices). that's my practical standpoint from my job experience -- GPLv3 will cause a u- boot fork and the net result is not beneficial to anyone. my completely personal standpoint is the same -- do not use the GPLv3. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
