On 02/13/2018 12:09 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 02/13/2018 08:33 PM, York Sun wrote: >> On 02/13/2018 11:16 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: >>> On 02/13/2018 07:32 PM, York Sun wrote: >>>> On 02/13/2018 09:38 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>> On 02/13/2018 05:30 PM, York Sun wrote: >>>>>> On 02/13/2018 04:49 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >>>>>>> Dear York, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In message >>>>>>> <vi1pr04mb20785ef7d2578e39c048ee219a...@vi1pr04mb2078.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> >>>>>>> you wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nobody said anything. Some addresses bounced. And most changes made out >>>>>>>> people outside Freescale/NXP are minor changes, except twice the files >>>>>>>> were moved during U-Boot structure change. What options do I have? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ask all people who contributed to that code for their explicit >>>>>>> permission. Legally it is a huge difference between actively >>>>>>> confirming approval and not reacting at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> All, >>>>>> >>>>>> If you haven't responded, please give your explicit approval to change >>>>>> Freescale DDR driver to dual-license so it can be re-used by other >>>>>> project(s) with BSD license. Here is the list I compiled from the git >>>>>> history. All commits made by Freescale/NXP employees are removed from >>>>>> this list. >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>> cd84b1f - Marek Vasut, marek.va...@gmail.com, 6 years ago : GCC4.6: >>>>>> Squash warnings in ddr[123]_dimm_params.c >>>>> >>>>> I do NOT approve. >>>>> >>>>> My previous experience with dual-licensed code was with wpa-supplicant. >>>>> A certain company manufacturing handhelds took it, modified it and was >>>>> selling the binary. While we were porting Linux onto the device, we >>>>> asked for the modifications to get the WiFi operational in the Linux port. >>>>> >>>>> What we got from this company was "it's BSD licensed, go away". Were the >>>>> code GPL, they would be legally obliged to provide the changes, but it >>>>> was BSD, so the company in question could make profit and the community >>>>> lost. >>>>> >>>>> This was a prime example of how BSD license is harmful to software >>>>> freedom and how the community lost because of the BSD license. I do not >>>>> want to see this happening ever again and I like GPL for that very much. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Marek, >>>> >>>> Please allow me to try to convince you. >>>> Git log shows you have one commit cd84b1f which fixed the compiling >>>> warning for GCC 4.6 on three debug messages. I appreciate your fix. >>>> >>>> This driver is for Freescale/NXP DDR controllers, specifically designed >>>> on Freescale/NXP SoCs. We spent tremendous effort to make it robust. >>>> This driver is useful to initialize DDR for the platforms. While we are >>>> moving the platform initialization to ATF (Arm Trusted Firmware), or >>>> other pre-bootloader code (such as NXP's implementation of ATF), this >>>> driver can be reused to provide the same level of hardware support. As >>>> you may know, ATF uses BSD-3 license (some files have GPL/BSD dual >>>> licnese). Your approval will make our life easier without having to >>>> rewrite the entire driver from scratch. >>> >>> So what is in it for me ? >> >> You may have the flexibility to use ATF or other pre-bootloader software >> _if_ we successfully upstream this driver to ATF project. > > It also allows you to just distribute binaries of the ATF without > releasing the source. > >>> If the code remains GPL, I can ask NXP for changes to the driver if I >>> have the binary which contains this code. >>> >>> If the code gets re-licensed to dual GPL/BSD, I assume in certain cases, >>> NXP will choose BSD and will not be obliged to provide the changes. >> >> Guess who makes substantial changes to the hardware driver? The people >> with extensive knowledge of the hardware design. It's not our interest >> to hide our design from any users. >> >>> I don't see any benefit for me, any way I look at it, I'm either even or >>> loose . >> >> If we don't find a way to reuse this driver, I will have to write a new >> driver. It's not easy to keep two different drivers in sync. So _this_ >> driver will probably be left behind. I don't think that's in anyone's >> interest. >> >>> >>> Why can't you use the code under the current (GPL) license anyway ? >>> >> >> Do you think the GPL driver can be added to ATF project? I don't think >> so. So it is a matter of we either can have it in ATF, or we can't. > > Well, it seems this patch was applied to U-Boot master anyway [1], even > though there are concerns and ongoing discussion ... so I lost anyway. > > I am _extremely_ disappointed !
I take the responsibility for requesting the pull without getting your approval in time. I am still trying to convince you it is right to use dual license on this driver. Do you want to continue the discussion? York _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
