On 02/13/2018 08:33 PM, York Sun wrote: > On 02/13/2018 11:16 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 02/13/2018 07:32 PM, York Sun wrote: >>> On 02/13/2018 09:38 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> On 02/13/2018 05:30 PM, York Sun wrote: >>>>> On 02/13/2018 04:49 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >>>>>> Dear York, >>>>>> >>>>>> In message >>>>>> <vi1pr04mb20785ef7d2578e39c048ee219a...@vi1pr04mb2078.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> >>>>>> you wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nobody said anything. Some addresses bounced. And most changes made out >>>>>>> people outside Freescale/NXP are minor changes, except twice the files >>>>>>> were moved during U-Boot structure change. What options do I have? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ask all people who contributed to that code for their explicit >>>>>> permission. Legally it is a huge difference between actively >>>>>> confirming approval and not reacting at all. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> If you haven't responded, please give your explicit approval to change >>>>> Freescale DDR driver to dual-license so it can be re-used by other >>>>> project(s) with BSD license. Here is the list I compiled from the git >>>>> history. All commits made by Freescale/NXP employees are removed from >>>>> this list. >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>> cd84b1f - Marek Vasut, marek.va...@gmail.com, 6 years ago : GCC4.6: >>>>> Squash warnings in ddr[123]_dimm_params.c >>>> >>>> I do NOT approve. >>>> >>>> My previous experience with dual-licensed code was with wpa-supplicant. >>>> A certain company manufacturing handhelds took it, modified it and was >>>> selling the binary. While we were porting Linux onto the device, we >>>> asked for the modifications to get the WiFi operational in the Linux port. >>>> >>>> What we got from this company was "it's BSD licensed, go away". Were the >>>> code GPL, they would be legally obliged to provide the changes, but it >>>> was BSD, so the company in question could make profit and the community >>>> lost. >>>> >>>> This was a prime example of how BSD license is harmful to software >>>> freedom and how the community lost because of the BSD license. I do not >>>> want to see this happening ever again and I like GPL for that very much. >>>> >>> >>> Marek, >>> >>> Please allow me to try to convince you. >>> Git log shows you have one commit cd84b1f which fixed the compiling >>> warning for GCC 4.6 on three debug messages. I appreciate your fix. >>> >>> This driver is for Freescale/NXP DDR controllers, specifically designed >>> on Freescale/NXP SoCs. We spent tremendous effort to make it robust. >>> This driver is useful to initialize DDR for the platforms. While we are >>> moving the platform initialization to ATF (Arm Trusted Firmware), or >>> other pre-bootloader code (such as NXP's implementation of ATF), this >>> driver can be reused to provide the same level of hardware support. As >>> you may know, ATF uses BSD-3 license (some files have GPL/BSD dual >>> licnese). Your approval will make our life easier without having to >>> rewrite the entire driver from scratch. >> >> So what is in it for me ? > > You may have the flexibility to use ATF or other pre-bootloader software > _if_ we successfully upstream this driver to ATF project.
It also allows you to just distribute binaries of the ATF without releasing the source. >> If the code remains GPL, I can ask NXP for changes to the driver if I >> have the binary which contains this code. >> >> If the code gets re-licensed to dual GPL/BSD, I assume in certain cases, >> NXP will choose BSD and will not be obliged to provide the changes. > > Guess who makes substantial changes to the hardware driver? The people > with extensive knowledge of the hardware design. It's not our interest > to hide our design from any users. > >> I don't see any benefit for me, any way I look at it, I'm either even or >> loose . > > If we don't find a way to reuse this driver, I will have to write a new > driver. It's not easy to keep two different drivers in sync. So _this_ > driver will probably be left behind. I don't think that's in anyone's > interest. > >> >> Why can't you use the code under the current (GPL) license anyway ? >> > > Do you think the GPL driver can be added to ATF project? I don't think > so. So it is a matter of we either can have it in ATF, or we can't. Well, it seems this patch was applied to U-Boot master anyway [1], even though there are concerns and ongoing discussion ... so I lost anyway. I am _extremely_ disappointed ! [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/872169/ -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot