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

[Aneesh V]

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.

best regards,
Aneesh