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.
br,
Aneesh
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
