On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Aneesh V <ane...@ti.com> wrote: > Dear Wolfgang, > > > On Tuesday 17 January 2012 02:46 PM, Aneesh V wrote: >> >> Dear Wolfgang, >> >> On Wednesday 23 November 2011 03:33 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >>> >>> * Wolfgang Denk | 2011-11-22 20:04:47 [+0100]: >>> >>>> Dear Sebastian Andrzej Siewior, >>>> >>>> In message<20111122123007.ga5...@linutronix.de> you wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> + * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or >>>>>>> without >>>>>>> + * modification, are permitted provided that the following >>>>>>> conditions >>>>>>> + * are met: >>>>>>> + * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright >>>>>>> + * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. >>>>>>> + * * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above >>>>>>> copyright >>>>>>> + * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in >>>>>>> + * the documentation and/or other materials provided with the >>>>>>> + * distribution. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, but this is not GPL compatible. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ehm. Is this the All rights reserved issue? If so then I assumed that I >>>>> cleared up things in >>>> >>>> >>>> No, it's the "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce..." >>>> clause. >>> >>> >>> How so? If you distribute it as source nothing changes. I don't see much >>> difference in binary form either: section 1 of the GPL says >>> >>> |.. keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the >>> |absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a >>> |copy of this License along with the Program. >>> >>> and this is no different. It does not mention whether the software has >>> to be passed in source or binary form. The BSD part does not push any >>> restrictions on the GPL, it "wants" the same thing. Section 6 of the GPL >>> says that by redistributing the receiptient should receive a copy of >>> this license. The section you mentioed is no different. If you >>> distribute GPL in binary code you have let the receiptient know, that he >>> is using GPL code. A note in the documentation is enough as far as I >>> know [if remeber correctly Harald went after a few companies which were >>> using Linux and were not letting the customers know about it]. >>> >>> If you look at the fresh released Quake3 source [0] you see that there >>> is a readme file which points out that it is GPL code and enumerates >>> various other licenses. >>> >>> So right now, I don't see why those two should not be compatible. Plus >>> the FSF claims that they are [1]. >>> >>> [0] https://github.com/TTimo/doom3.gpl >>> [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#FreeBSD >> >> >> What is your final call on this? The above arguments sound convincing >> to me, but I have to admit that I am no legal expert. Either way, it >> will be great to have a closure on this. Lack of fastboot support was >> the greatest impediment to adoption of mainline U-Boot in our previous >> platforms. It will be really unfortunate if the same happens to OMAP5 >> that has just arrived. > > > Ping.
Part of the feedback (see http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/126797/) was not addressed, namely the complete reference (including hash) where the code came from. -- Tom _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot