On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 05:30:52PM -0700, Eric Nelson wrote: > On 08/21/2013 04:30 AM, tiger...@viatech.com.cn wrote: > >Hi, experts: > > > >Why not include cmd_fastboot.c in common directory in 2013.07 release > >package? > > > >Because of code license? > > > >Or other reason? > > > > Hi Tiger, > > You bring up a question we're interested in as well. > > It looks to me as if this died somewhere back in April of 2011 > with this discussion: > > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-April/thread.html#90983 > > And a straw-man design document discussed here: > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-April/thread.html/#091597 > > And a message about licensing in May of 2012: > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-May/125304.html > > Do we need a clean-room implementation in order to comply with? > > Is anybody working either the licensing or implementation of this?
So, putting my TI hat on, I've poked one of our legal teams about one of the fastboot versions we've done (the shove everything into cmd_fastboot.c one, which I don't like as much as the split up ones, but, that's a technical thing not a license thing) to see if there's any problems or not. Historically, Wolfgang objected, roughly, on the grounds of "great, Yet Another Standard by Bigcompany forcing things on us". Which I can understand, but frankly, it's more of an ABI than some of the "funny" things Android did within the kernel, so I'm willing to live with it, so long as the implementation is done well, and there's no legal hurdles. In fact, http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/126797/ was "looks legally fine, needs technical changes". -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
