On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 09:53:22AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > On 25.12.15 04:29, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 02:57:47PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > >> This is my Christmas present for my openSUSE friends :). > >> > >> U-Boot is a great project for embedded devices. However, convincing > >> everyone involved that only for "a few oddball ARM devices" we need to > >> support different configuration formats from grub2 when all other platforms > >> (PPC, System Z, x86) are standardized on a single format is a nightmare. > >> > >> So we started to explore alternatives. At first, people tried to get > >> grub2 running using the u-boot api interface. However, FWIW that one > >> doesn't support relocations, so you need to know where to link grub2 to > >> at compile time. It also seems to be broken more often than not. And on > >> top of it all, it's a one-off interface, so yet another thing to maintain. > >> > >> That led to a nifty idea. What if we can just implement the EFI application > >> protocol on top of U-Boot? Then we could compile a single grub2 binary for > >> uEFI based systems and U-Boot based systems and as soon as that one's > >> loaded, > >> everything looks and feels (almost) the same. > >> > >> This patch set is the result of pursuing this endeavor. > > > > So, I owe the whole codebase a real review. My very quick question > > however is, aside from what you had to borrow from wine, can you license > > everything else as GPL v2 or later rather than LGPL? > > I'm personally a pretty big fan of the LGPL, since it's a very > reasonable compromise between closed and open source IMHO ;). > > Is there a particular reason you're asking for this? LGPL code is fully > compatible with GPL code and the resulting binary would be GPL anyway > because FWIW you can't compile U-Boot without GPL code inside.
The general rules for U-Boot code are to be GPL v2 or later. U-Boot is (and always will be) a GPL v2 only project as there's simply too much Linux kernel code that we want to leverage. We do make special exceptions at times for very good reasons (like include/android_image.h is the authorative BSD-2 clause copy of that information) and I've even told some companies that for crypto-auth-sensitive stuff they can do GPL v2 only in their submission (again, due to U-Boot always being a v2 only project). So, I'm not gonig to reject the EFI loader code if you say no, you won't re-license it as GPL v2 (or v2 and later) but I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot