On 15:41 Tue 23 Jun , Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday 23 June 2009 15:26:35 Scott Wood wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 06:33:53PM +0200, Detlev Zundel wrote: > > > Apart from the the above reasons, currently most people who voiced their > > > opinion (not too many right now) oppose the move. The reasoning seems > > > to be that companies using U-Boot inside a commercial product consider > > > it to be "a neccessary precondition to only accept blessed firmware > > > upgrades" (my wording). What motivates this argument is not completely > > > clear to me. Maybe it is fear of being liable as a product vendor to > > > faulty sw upgrades. > > > > Regardless of what motivates it, people who sell hardware to such > > customers (and who also contribute to u-boot) may not want to risk losing > > that business by pushing GPLv3 on them. > > indeed. expecting businesses to push other peoples' agenda isnt realistic, > especially when the conversation is pretty much a net customer loss for said > businesses. customers arent going to appear because your business is now > pushing GPLv3 instead of GPLv2, but they will certainly disappear. 200% agree I can assure you that today If we switch the V2 to the v3 we will lose a lot of customers and soc that use secure boot as example which is not a progression but a problematic regression
And force to give the private key which use to sign the code is not reallist it's a security flaw so U-Boot will close itself to a lots of business and customers Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
