[U-Boot-Users] Proposal for a make option to include an additional stand alone program directory

[Timur Tabi]

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.

-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale