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 effect done this informally. It would be better to state this
in an explicit exception. The exception can be broad or narrow. The
set of activities permitted can be whatever you choose. It can apply
to drivers loaded dynamically, or drivers linked statically, or both.
It can specify particular kinds of code, such as "drivers" or "drivers
taken from Linux as found on kernel.org", or whatever. It can permit
one other license, such as GPLv2, or a range of other licenses.
To use GPLv2-covered drivers in this way would require a second
exception -- on the drivers, to permit combining them with code under
GPLv3. Perhaps the driver developers would agree to such an
exception, or agree to license the drivers under GPLv2|GPLv3, or under
LGPLv2.1. Either one would do the job.
Ethically, to permit non-free drivers would be a big step backward,
since this would effectively make U-boot no longer free as used in
practice. Allowing non-free drivers in Linux has caused a lasting
weakness in our community, as it fails to pressure the manufacturers
to permit free drivers.
To permit GPLv2-only drivers does not raise an ethical issue, since
they are free. It only raises the legal issue which can be resolved
as described above.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
