On Wednesday, November 21, 2018, Stefano Babic <sba...@denx.de> wrote:
> Hi Marek, > > On 21/11/18 15:31, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On 11/21/2018 10:20 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > >> Dear Stefano, > > > > Hi, > > > >> In message <96836cc1-e4bb-a2a2-05ac-056053b4c...@denx.de> you wrote: > >>> > >>> I would like to see the library under LGPL instead of GPL2, too, and I > >>> raised this issue when I started SWUpdate, but I was not very active to > >>> promote this. Tom, Wolfgang, is there chances to switch license ? > >> > >> Relicensing requires permission from all who contributed to that > >> code. > >> > >> Consider mine as granted. > >> > >> But someone hat to invest the efforts to analyze the code so we > >> know who to ask, and then collect all the permissions... > >> > >>> A env library is very welcomed by many customers, because they could > >>> integrate it in their application if license allows it. > >> > >> Agreed. > > > > Then again, U-Boot environment structure is trivial, crc, flags, data, > > there is no complexity involved. There is probably some complexity in > > the backing store access stuff (MTD, block devs, legacy stuff), but that > > should either use some MTD utils libs, basic block access primitives or > > be given a once-over and possibly be dropped. > > > > I think prototyping a library from scratch that's LGPL would be a few > > days' work and the benefit would be tremendous all over. > > > I confess I had the same idea - why not ignore the code in tools/env > (they have also some drawbacks, see the locking mechanism in my previous > e-mail) and start with a new library from scratch ? Then LGPL is not an > issue anymore, it is a new development. And I already took this way for > "grubenv" (I had to, grubenv is not license compatible). > > But something in my head is telling me that this is not else as a fork > of u-boot (ok, a partial fork, just tools/env). And if the U-Boot > community decides to follow other ways for the environment, the "forked" > project aka "new library" should follow. But yes, I guess it is easier, > and I agree with you this is just a few days work. Once you had this new lgpl library, would it be a big problem to backport it to the U-Boot tree? Wouldn't that also ensure future commiters accept the lgpl license when adding their new code? Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
