Thanks Tom,
On 08/22/2013 06:59 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
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?
>> <snip>
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.
Customers using Android ask for fastboot support, and this isn't
a lot of code, so it seems worth pursuing IMHO.
> In fact, http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/126797/ was "looks
legally fine, needs technical changes".
Hmmm. I missed this.
The only remaining objection seems to have been the commit
message and attribution of the original source.
I'm CC'ing Aneesh to see if he can provide any guidance.
Regards,
Eric
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
