Hi Wolfgang!
On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 12:11:05PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
in message 20080706075219.GC4167@prithivi.gnumonks.org you wrote:
[PATCH] add 'license' command to u-boot command line
The 'license' command includes the u-boot license (GPLv2) into the actual bootloader binary. The license text can be shown interactively at the u-boot commandline.
When we started working on this boot loader (by then still under the name 8xxrom or maybe already PPCBoot, I don't remember exactly any more) we decided not to implement such a feature because of (flash) memory footprint reasons.
Well, the same argument holds true for many other of u-boot's features. However, they still get implemented, and the compilation/inclusion in the (flash) image therefore is optional. Users who don't want it, get zero additional benefit.
I still feel this is pretty heavy in terms of memory footprint versus benefit ratio.
that is probably from your point of view.
While I was working for OpenMoko, from a vendor perspective of a company that wants to make 100% sure that the GPL is always followed, this kind of feature makes a lot of sense. Even if you just put a u-boot binary on some ftp server (without the GPL text next to it) you still don't risk any GPL infringement.
For products where the commandline can actually be accessed by the end user, this helps to prevent inadvertent GPL violations, since the GPLv2 license text can no longer be 'forgotten' to be included into the product.
The 'license' command can be enabled by CONFIG_CMD_LICENSE.
Well, I bet 9:1 that some vendors (and I guess you and me know a few of them pretty well) may simply "forget" to enable the CONFIG_CMD_LICENSE option, or they ship U-Boot in a configuration where access to an interactive console interface is difficult or even impossible (completely unintentionally, of course).
this is perfectly true. I'm not saying that this patch is a fire-and-forget solution for all device manufacturers. I'm simply saying that this solved a practical problem for OpenMoko. It's a straight-forward patch that doesn't impact any existing code or files, and it comes at zero footprint impact if you don't want it.
So the benefit in such cases is really small, especially since the License text cannot be found easily in the binary image (as it's compressed).
well, it's supposed to offer the license text at the command line, not in the memory image..
So I have to admit that I'm realy biased here. Let's see what other's say.
Ok. I'm also waiting for the feedback of others. Please keep in mind tha this is a zero-maintenance patch that doesn't affect any existing code. So even while you might think the feature is esoteric, it is a very painless feature to add.
But I definitely object against such a binary, i. e. unreadable copy of some license which nobody can check, and which quickly gets out of sync with the COPYING file included with the source code.
If we add such a command, I insist that the included (compressed) licenzse text must be generated on the fly from the COPYING file, i. e. I will reject all attempts that cause two (probably different) copies of the license text included with U-Boot.
Ok, I agree. Let's wait for the further comments on the list. If I have the feeling that such a feature would be accepted, I'll re-work the patch to include a script and makefile hooks to generate the header file with the compressed license text on-the-fly while compiling u-boot.
Regards,