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

[Aneesh V]

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 at 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.

br,
Aneesh