Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message 4631093C.7060002@freescale.com you wrote:
But even if the application were non-GPL, how would running it be a GPL violation? If I load the application into memory, and just execute it, and the application runs without calling U-Boot code, and then the application exits, that's not a GPL violation.
You agree that static linking against a non-GPL library is illegal?
What does static linking against a NON-GPL library mean? You combine the U-Boot image and the library image in some way, or load the library image into memory, then you call a function from that library, and just execute it, and that library function runs without calling U-Boot code, and then the library function returns, that's ... ...a GPL violation.
Agreed? Then compare my text against your text a few lines above, and tell me the difference.
Running an application and calling a function is two very different things: U-Boot works perfectly fine without this application, and is just a helper to be able to load and atart and run it. But a binary firmware, which is needed for U-Boot to function properly, where U-Boot does not work correctly or with the full functionality if the firmware is not present, is a different thing.
BTW: this is just my view, and IANAL...
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
If you look at the VSC7385 switch product brief: http://www.vitesse.com/products/product.php?number=VSC7385 you will see that it has a 8051-type supervisor processor. It looks to me like all Timur is doing is loading a binary blob into the switch's supervisor processor, which would not be a GPL issue.
Unfortunately, Vitesse feels their loader software is sooper sekret so I cannot download a copy to see what the licensing terms are. If that is _not_ GPL, there may be an issue, but only with the loader software. If the loader software is stand-alone (can be run as a u-boot stand-alone application) it would not be a GPL issue since the u-boot license explicitly allows that.
IANAL (and have been reading too much groklaw) gvb