[U-Boot-Users] Proposal for a make option to include an additional stand alone program directory
timur at freescale.com
Thu Apr 26 23:04:48 CEST 2007
Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Timur Tabi" <timur at freescale.com>
> To: "Wolfgang Denk" <wd at denx.de>
> Cc: <u-boot-users at lists.sourceforge.net>; "Jeff Mann"
> <MannJ at embeddedplanet.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 10:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] Proposal for a make option to include an
> additional stand alone program directory
>> Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>> You cannot link non-GPL code into U-Boot.
>> What if I use mkimage to merge u-boot.bin with proprietaryfirmware.bin?
>> If that doesn't work, what if I burn u-boot.bin into flash at some
>> location, and then burn
>> proprietaryfirmware.bin into flash at another location, and then I
>> create an an image file
>> by copying all of flash?
>> It depends on how you define linking. I would say that taking two
>> binaries, one from GPL
>> code and one from non-GPL code, and just merging them into another
>> binary, that cannot be
>> a GPL violation.
> If combining U-Boot with the switch binary results in that you can tftp
> from any
> of the 5 ports , and this is not possible without combining with the
> binary, then you
> are most likely violating the GPL.
I think there's a lot of misunderstanding going on here, and it's probably my fault for
not being clear. The non-GPL firmware is not run on the host processor. It is loaded
into the memory of an on-board device.
What I was considering is making a change to the build process so that when the user built
u-boot.bin, if the firmware binary were present, it would merge that into the u-boot.bin
binary, for convenience.
> If your version of u-boot has any knowledge about program locations
> within the closed
> binary, or vice versa, then you are most likely violating the GPL.
The binary is not being executed by U-Boot, it is being copied into device memory by
U-Boot via a loader application. If the loader application is GPL, then I don't see how
this is a GPL violation. However, if the loader is not GPL, then I'm not sure.
Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale
More information about the U-Boot