Hi Mike, > On Wednesday 24 June 2009 09:17:50 Detlev Zundel wrote: >> > if you want to push your agenda on your customers (i'm assuming you >> > actually have some and arent just here for fun), that's your business. >> >> Is it possible that you jump to conslusions here? All we - on a regular >> basis - do is to talk to our customers until we understand what the >> customer needs. Then we think about how this can or cannot be done with >> the help of Free Software. After all nobody is forcing anyone to use >> Free Software and for some customer wishes Free Software may simply be >> not a legal option, so what? >> >> In this process it is common that customers have incomplete information >> about Free Software in general and not well-articulated fears making >> them jump to premature conclusions (e.g. "we need a closed source Linux >> kernel driver") which would prevent us from doing development for them. >> At this point it is extremely important to learn about the reasoning of >> the customer and then clearing up confusion probably leading to >> revisiting the question of using Free Software. >> >> Essentially I can only remember one customer in the last years who did >> not go further at the time after learning that we would not develop a >> non-GPL kernel module. Incidentally this customer is now back on our >> doorstep because the market effectively forces him to use a GNU/Linux >> system from a feature perspective. This time around closed sources >> kernel modules are not even on the agenda anymore. > > and that's your prerogative. how you choose to run your business has no > bearing at all on how other people choose to run their businesses.
All I said is that we have a pretty good idea of what is legal and what isn;t and that we will not start work in an area where we belive we could actually be liable by law. How you come to the conclusion that this is "prerogative" completely escapes me. Are you sure that you are interested in what I say? >> > but when customers absolutely state their requirements are secure boot >> > and the ability to lock their hardware so no one else can run things, >> > then i'm not about to argue with them. their response is simply >> > "fine, we'll move on to the next guy who will satisfy our >> > requirements". >> >> It is your decision if you don't want to even understand your customers >> needs. > > wrong, we've actually done the opposite. we know what they want to do and it > is doable with GPLv2. it is not doable with GPLv3. >From what I read, I do not get this impression. "Locking people out" is not a ulterior motive but the outcome of a perceived threat to a business model. It was this business model that I wanted to get a clear picture of. It seems I cannot get any more informatino here. > yes, there are cases of ingrained perceptions about how to accomplish > something and GPLv3 blocks those methods. but again, it is *your* choice to > attempt to educate people here, it is not the automatic burden of people to > champion the GNU cause for you. What kind of axe do you have to grind here? We (as a project) were asked about our stance to move to GPLv3 which is a perfectly good question to pose. All I want to do is collect facts - your allegation that I want other people to carry a "burden" shows me that this way will bear no more fruit. >> > they arent generally trying to lock out people who just want to toy, >> > they're targeting people who want to clone their hardware or >> > functionality to create knockoffs or they're trying to guarantee lock >> > down so they can get certified (like medical devices). >> >> How does GPLv3 vs. GPLv2 touch the "we will get cloned" question? Maybe >> I do not see the obvious here, but sourcecode to binaries under either >> license must be available, so what's the difference? > > if you dont have the decryption keys, you cant read the end program. having > access to the u-boot source doesnt matter. Having access to the physical device will. How long do you think will it take to get broken into? Unfortunately physics do not follow wishes of companies as seen over and over in the past. >> On the other hand I also do believe that for a project which is here >> simply because of the benefits of the GPL, we should spend some time >> thinking this through and then base the decision of the project on a >> sound basis. Handwaving arguments do not help much here, so thanks for >> your input. > > except that licensing choice is just as much practical considerations (can > XYZ > be done with the GPLv3) as it is personal choice. it dictates how we choose > to *let* other people utilize the code. Licensing ceases to be a personal choice when it is a community project. > i personally dont have a problem with people locking their hardware. > that is their choice and the GPLv2 allows them that freedom. 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. > hell, i wouldnt have a problem with a public domain u-boot. people > dont use GPLv3 because it is a "superior" license from a technical > perspective, they use it because they want to *restrict* how others > use their code. Are you standing on your head typing this? You actually want to allow a few people to _massively_ restrict all the rest. I cannot follow here. Cheers Detlev -- Algebraists do it in a ring, in fields, in groups. -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-40 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: d...@denx.de _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
