[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] image: add support for Android's boot image format

[Tom Rini <tom.rini@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Aneesh V <aneesh@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.GA5755@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