There's only one thing about U-Boot that doesn't seem so good:
U-Boot is GPLv2 (sometimes "or later").
To have some parts which are GPLv2 only is unfortunate.
Is there any chance of convincing those authors to change that?
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-
> The NAND subsystem is from Linux and is GPL v2 only, as is the
> u-boot-specific NAND code in drivers/mtd/nand.
Ok, thanks for that info. Subtracting the drivers this is ~5k LOC,
right?
Two ways of dealing with ths include (1) contacting the developers and
asking then to reli
Embedded systems using core soc silicon from a number of manufacturers
have started to use what is known as 'secure boot'. This is typically the
case in applications which utilise conditional access system software to
protect content. The emphasis on using secure boot is largely dri
This is due to us many times (re-)using Linux drivers inside U-Boot.
This won't stop you from making sure all of U-Boot (aside from these
drivers) says "GPLv2 or later". Also, you can talk with the
developers of the drivers that you need, or might need, to ask them to
release their drivers GP
I can assure you that today If we switch the V2 to the v3 we will lose a
lot of
customers
Are the users of U-Boot usually customers? That term normally refers
to people that buy a commercial product or service.
And force to give the private key which use to sign the code is not real
their response is simply "fine, we'll move on to the next=
=20
guy who will satisfy our requirements".
When people offer to use my programs if I relax the license
requirements, my respose to them is, "If you don't use my software,
that's your loss."
__
> You have a strange definition of freedom - for you it is limited to the
> provider of the devices not to the users of the devices. I guess this
> is what this all boils down to.
No, it is "let the device providers and the users who have *chosen* to
use those devices sort it
- automotive control units: Think about cars being on the highway with
many fancy features built into their electronics (from their owners),
which unfortunately are a security risk for the owner and others on the
road.
I don't think cars depend on software for safety as such. If a
if the GNU project wants people to use the GPLv3 and people have
a perception of it being crap, then it's their problem to address
it.
I don't think there is much danger of that. Many software packages
use GPLv3 and are appreciated by many users.
But there is a deeper point to make
I would like to add that sometimes regulations EXPLICITELY require secure
boot. No product can be approved without it. And this does not have anything
to do with public's freedom. Just one example is gambling industry which I
happen to work right now.
Gambling machines for casinos
If I use a GPLv3 bootloader in a medical tool, a car, Point of payment
terminal,
Military System, etc... it is a grave security flaw.
I'm not sure that you will be very happy if someone can modify the Firmware
freely. As you may loose money to be killed and at the extrem kill milli
> Embedded systems using core soc silicon from a number of manufacturers
> have started to use what is known as 'secure boot'. This is typically
> the case in applications which utilise conditional access system software
> to protect content. The emphasis on using secure boo
> The other systems that you speak of are not consumer products, so this
> requirement in GPLv3 does not apply to them.
in a Point of payment terminal it does not apply are sure?
I am sure. Those are not consumer products. They are made for
businesses only.
> You seem to be worr
> - medical equipment: Think what nice features could be implemented
into
> these many machines located in the emergency room... Accessible to any
> person who comes by.
>
> Being free to change your copy of a program does not mean you must let
> anyone and ever
then i guess since u-boot is already doing what is right, this thread is a =
big=20
waste of time
I hope the main developers of U-Boot will conclude that it is right to move
to GPLv3.
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.
> I am sure. Those are not consumer products. They are made for
> businesses only.
Wrong, as example your cell phone
For the record, I do not have a cell phone, because I object to the
surveillance they do.
can be a part of the PPT, and your al
Wouldn't it make sense to add a paragraph to the GPL, stating that a
company using GPL software in their system must also provide all that
documentation to their customers? Only then the SW modification can be
properly done?
It is not possible for a software license to require this
As Mike has stated - we work on many devices who's products would fall
under
the GPL 3's User Products category - who's manufactures have told us "No
GPL3".
Would you like to describe one such product? All the product types
discussed so far are outside the category of User Produc
Portable hand held medical devices - such as Glucometers. They fall into
both
categories. They are medical devices, who's "bad" software could cause a
user
to give them selves too much insulin (hypoglycemia -> pass out -> seizure
->
death), or too little insulin (Hyperglycaemi
Files without a copyright notice and a license notice are a legal problem.
Legally, every file is copyrighted. If there's no copyright notice,
that just means it gives no info about who the copyright holder is.
The lack of a license notice is a problem. If the file is trivial,
just a few lines,
> That would be a good reason for the user not to change the software in
> this device. However, that does not mean he should be stopped.
The FDA disagrees :)
Governments often oppose people's freedom. That is why fighting for
freedom is hard.
They add requirements to ensure th
That is great - and I applaud your efforts. I think that the work you are
doing is valuable, and the contributions you have made have been critically
important to the free and closed software developments that people to today.
If you mean that my work has contrubuted to non-free soft
Maybe you should be working with these types of certification authorities,
rather than individual developers?
I would be glad to do so. I have no contacts in the FDA, and I am not
so famous that mere mention of my name would make them pay attention.
But maybe some of these developers cou
BTW, thanks for that, and GCC, and all that follows...
I am glad it is useful. I hope people will recall once in a while
that I did this so that users could control their computing. I wrote
the GNU GPL (all versions) towards this same end.
___
U-B
Not to go down a rat hole - but as a normal part of development of non-free
software, people use emacs, gcc, and gdb all the time - you aren't proud of
the contributions you made to those projects?
Yes, I am, but not because they help proprietary software.
What I set out to change i
Aneesh Chopra was Virginia s Fourth Secretary of Technology, and has
recently
been sworn in as the Federal CTO.
I doubt I could get an appointment with such a high-ranked "public
servant" without help from a high-ranked public master (businessman).
But we can try.
___
I can't see how someone can deny access to the network, while still
allowing
anyone's software to be run on the device, without some sort of key system
in
the networking hardware - is that what you had in mind?
This is aimed at cell phone networks: it recognizes they are allowed
to
> While I probably would not want to change my glucometer, the practice
> of designing hardware so that people cannot change it is becoming more
> and more of a threat to our freedom in general.
Can you be a bit more specific on this? Which devices are you aware of,
that use GP
> Access to a network may be denied when the modification itself materially
> and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules
> and protocols for communication across the network.
The way I read that is that it is the unit you are on will have it's radio
> As it happens, Bison can also be used to develop non-free programs. This
is
> because we decided to explicitly permit the use of the Bison standard
> parser program in Bison output files without restriction. We made the
> decision because there were other tools comparable to Biso
You'd make me happy if I was able to access cable TV signals I have
paid for without DRM.
I think it is not quite correct to call cable scrambling DRM. DRM
restricts the use of data you have a copy of. Cable scrambling
prevents you from getting the data if you do not pay for the
descramb
If the cell phone operator's "rule" says that operating of a modified
device
should not effect non-modified devices in close proximity (jamming - which
I
think meets the "materially and adversely affects the operation of the
network" statement)
It makes no difference, because
With the advent of CI+ for DVB (the european-originated version of
digital TV meanwhile used in several parts of the world), the cable
operators have the possibility to only allow descrambling by CI+
capable receivers/descrambling modules. However, to be CI+ compliant,
all recei
In my experience, people who want a more permissive license
typically claim that their participation is absolutely necessary,
and doing without it would be a disaster. It tends to be somewhat
of an exaggeration.
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx
Richard, Wolfgang, U-Boot List, how do you view a "loadable module
loophole" fitting in with GPLv3
(a) legally and
(b) philosophically?
Legally, the copyright holders of U-boot can give permission for
linking with drivers under other licenses. The developers of Linux
have in effe
35 matches
Mail list logo
