From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Frysinger Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:41:52 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] U-book and GPLv3? (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20090623192634.GB23560@b07421-ec1.am.freescale.net> References: <20090618145128.69F27832E416@gemini.denx.de> <20090623192634.GB23560@b07421-ec1.am.freescale.net> Message-ID: <200906231541.54291.vapier@gentoo.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de 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. customers arent going to appear because your business is now pushing GPLv3 instead of GPLv2, but they will certainly disappear. -mike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20090623/1873a5a7/attachment.pgp