[U-Boot] U-book and GPLv3? (fwd)

[Scott Wood]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:09:49AM +0200, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> > nand_ecc.c is an exception, which not only has the "or later" language
> > but also has an exception that makes it non-viral.
> 
> Why do you refer to one of the most important aspects of the
> effectiveness of the GPL as being viral?  GPLd software neither attacks
> nor infects software so the wording is actively misleading.

I was referring to the "if you link me in, the entire project must be under
my terms" clause.  I refer to it as viral because that is the typical
terminology for this sort of license -- so named because it can lead to
software being licensed under GPL that otherwise wouldn't have been just so
it can be combined with existing GPL software, and then yet more software
licenses under GPL so it can link with *that* software (now devoid of the
original code whose author explicitly chose GPL), etc.

Whether it is a good thing is a matter of personal opinion, which I was
trying to keep out of that e-mail.

Looks like I failed. :-)

> > 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.
> 
> Actually I want to understand why people fear to "loose business" with
> GPLv3.  What is the exact scenario that is so threatening?  Unless this
> is understood, it is hard to argue in any way.

U-boot contributor A wants to sell hardware to customer B, who wants secure
boot, or for any other reason does not want to involve themselves in GPL3. 
I'm not going to provide names, but this is not hypothetical.  If nobody
wanted to do the things that GPLv3 prevents, there wouldn't be a GPLv3. :-)

U-boot goes GPLv3.  A has a choice to continue developing on mainline
u-boot, in which case one of these happens:

1. A develops *another* bootloader in parallel (possibly based on old GPLv2
u-boot) for customer B,
2. B develops (or acquires) their own firmware, or
3. B buys hardware from someone else who provides non-GPL3 firmware.

#2 seems unlikely if #3 is a reasonable option -- and if A is going to do
#1, why wouldn't they develop *only* that non-GPL3 firmware if it is a
superset of usefulness to A (who doesn't particularly care about the GPL3
agenda)?  In other words, a fork.

-Scott