On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Graeme Russ graeme.russ@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Sonny,
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Sonny Rao sonnyrao@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Graeme Russ graeme.russ@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On 24/09/11 03:38, Simon Glass wrote:
From: Sonny Rao sonnyrao@chromium.org
From: Sonny Rao sonnyrao@chromium.org
These functions are useful in U-Boot because they allow a graceful failure rather than an unpredictable stack overflow when printf() buffers are exceeded.
Mostly copied from the Linux kernel. I copied vscnprintf and scnprintf so we can change printf and vprintf to use the safe implementation but still return the correct values.
Have you checked for license compatibility? U-Boot is GPLv2+ and (most) of Linux is GPLv2 - You may not be legally permitted to do this
According to the FSF site, GPLv2 is compatible with GPLv3, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html
So it's fine to distribute them together.
Not so fast:
"GPLv2 is compatible with GPLv3 if the program allows you to choose "any later version" of the GPL, which is the case for most software released under this license"
'most', not 'all'
The key phrase is "any later version" - If this is not in the GPLv2 license text for the code your copying, you cannot license the derivative work under GPLv3 (or GPLv2+)
I'm a bit confused here... I was talking about distribution, not re-licensing. I'm certainly not saying U-boot should be trying to re-license GPLv2 only code. But the fact is that U-boot is already contains GPLv2 and GPLv2+ code and it is being distributed together.
In reality though, this code in U-boot was already copied from the same file in an older version of the kernel. The license (GPLv2 only) hasn't changed on that file, so U-boot is already distributing what is GPLv2 only code alongside GPLv2+ code -- which as I mentioned above is fine.
As long as you are not incorporating GPLv2 code into a file licensed under GPLv2+ and distributing the result as GPLv2+ or GPLv3.
My argument is that this code in U-boot was already GPLv2 only since it came from a GPLv2 only file in the kernel. I don't think that we're applying GPLv2 code into a file licensed under GPLv2+. Perhaps we could add an explicit comment stating that the code in lib/vsprintf.c is GPLv2 only so nobody gets the wrong idea.
The code here is derived from a later version of that same file, so I don't believe integrating this patch into U-boot actually changes anything with respect to licensing of this code.
I think U-Boot will have great difficulty going past GPLv2 due to the large volume of Linus code already in U-Boot - We would need to either get the original code relicensed GPLv2+ or rewrite it
And from the COPYING file in the Linux source:
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
and linux/lib/vsprintf.c:
/* * linux/lib/vsprintf.c * * Copyright (C) 1991, 1992 Linus Torvalds */
/* vsprintf.c -- Lars Wirzenius & Linus Torvalds. */ /* * Wirzenius wrote this portably, Torvalds fucked it up :-) */
/* * Fri Jul 13 2001 Crutcher Dunnavant crutcher+kernel@datastacks.com * - changed to provide snprintf and vsnprintf functions * So Feb 1 16:51:32 CET 2004 Juergen Quade quade@hsnr.de * - scnprintf and vscnprintf */
No 'any later version'
Yes, as I said before, this code is definitely GPLv2 only. I don't think we're disagreeing here.
Now U-Boot COPYING has:
U-Boot is Free Software. It is copyrighted by Wolfgang Denk and many others who contributed code (see the actual source code for details). You can redistribute U-Boot and/or modify it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation. Most of it can also be distributed, ----------------------------------- at your option, under any later version of the GNU General Public
License -- see individual files for exceptions.
So U-Boot is also GPLv2, but parts (like Linux) are GPLv2+
My point was there is a long term 'vision' for U-Boot to go GPLv3, and part of that vision is to reject any future GPLv2 only licensed code submitted. If we want the vision to be realised, I think we need to look at how we build new GPLv2+ code in new files rather than tying new code into GPLv2 only files which may, potentially, lock that code down. Although as the writer and copyright holder of a modification you may be free to move it over at a later date anyway - I don't know, and I think that's in the 'ask a lawyer' territory.
So yes, you are right - In terms of license compliance, we are OK as U-Boot is currently GPLv2 - In terms of U-Boot going to GPLv3, we are digging a bigger hole :)
Ok, then that's up to the U-boot community to decide if they wish to remove all GPLv2 only code, but I think that's a separate issue from what you originally brought up. I think we're in agreement that there aren't any licensing considerations with respect to maintaining the existing license which is GPLv2 only for lib/vsprintf.c.
Sonny