On 25.12.15 17:50, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 09:53:22AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> >> On 25.12.15 04:29, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 02:57:47PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>>> This is my Christmas present for my openSUSE friends :). >>>> >>>> U-Boot is a great project for embedded devices. However, convincing >>>> everyone involved that only for "a few oddball ARM devices" we need to >>>> support different configuration formats from grub2 when all other platforms >>>> (PPC, System Z, x86) are standardized on a single format is a nightmare. >>>> >>>> So we started to explore alternatives. At first, people tried to get >>>> grub2 running using the u-boot api interface. However, FWIW that one >>>> doesn't support relocations, so you need to know where to link grub2 to >>>> at compile time. It also seems to be broken more often than not. And on >>>> top of it all, it's a one-off interface, so yet another thing to maintain. >>>> >>>> That led to a nifty idea. What if we can just implement the EFI application >>>> protocol on top of U-Boot? Then we could compile a single grub2 binary for >>>> uEFI based systems and U-Boot based systems and as soon as that one's >>>> loaded, >>>> everything looks and feels (almost) the same. >>>> >>>> This patch set is the result of pursuing this endeavor. >>> >>> So, I owe the whole codebase a real review. My very quick question >>> however is, aside from what you had to borrow from wine, can you license >>> everything else as GPL v2 or later rather than LGPL? >> >> I'm personally a pretty big fan of the LGPL, since it's a very >> reasonable compromise between closed and open source IMHO ;). >> >> Is there a particular reason you're asking for this? LGPL code is fully >> compatible with GPL code and the resulting binary would be GPL anyway >> because FWIW you can't compile U-Boot without GPL code inside. > > The general rules for U-Boot code are to be GPL v2 or later. U-Boot is > (and always will be) a GPL v2 only project as there's simply too much > Linux kernel code that we want to leverage. We do make special > exceptions at times for very good reasons (like include/android_image.h > is the authorative BSD-2 clause copy of that information) and I've even > told some companies that for crypto-auth-sensitive stuff they can do GPL > v2 only in their submission (again, due to U-Boot always being a v2 only > project). > > So, I'm not gonig to reject the EFI loader code if you say no, you won't > re-license it as GPL v2 (or v2 and later) but I'd really appreciate it. > Thanks!
I've just read up and apparently it's completely legal and allowed to simply remove the LGPL (2.1+) boilerplate from a file and instead put a GPL (2.0+) one on it, even if you didn't write the code. So even if I had insisted to stick to LGPL v2.1+, you could've just written a patch to change it after the fact ;). But since everyone seems to be far more happy with GPL rather than LGPL, I've spared you that patch and changed the headers myself now. Alex _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
