On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 09:33:35AM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Aaron, > > In message <5376617.97hUrJXovB@flash> you wrote: > > > > > Again you don't answer my question. Why do you need a special new > > > API for such code? Why do you not just link that code with the rest > > > of U-Boot? > > > > The code in question that is calling the API is not GPL and hence cannot be > > linked with U-Boot though the phy code is GPL. > > Ouch. I was afraid to hear that. > > Please be aware that your newly created API does NOT implement a GPL > license exception. the only interface that allows for non-GPL code > to be run under control of U-Boot is the standalone program > interface, which is intentionally very restricted. > > In other words: what you are doing here is a clear (and intentional, > which makes it even worse) GPL license violation. > > > > It has been mentioned before, but just to be sure: this code which > > > uses your new API is licensed under a GPLv2 conforming lincense? > > > > > There should be no need. None of the code is linked against U-Boot, either > > at > > compile time nor at runtime. The application doesn't even know where it is > > located except by looking for a named block of memory. > > It does not have to be linked. You access internal interfaces of > U-Boot that have not been exported for non-GPL use, so your code > still has to be licensed under GPLv2 or a compatible license.
I'm just following up to say that I agree with Wolfgang here. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
