On 15:41 Tue 23 Jun , Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 23 June 2009 15:26:35 Scott Wood wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 06:33:53PM +0200, Detlev Zundel wrote:
Apart from the the above reasons, currently most people who voiced their opinion (not too many right now) oppose the move. The reasoning seems to be that companies using U-Boot inside a commercial product consider it to be "a neccessary precondition to only accept blessed firmware upgrades" (my wording). What motivates this argument is not completely clear to me. Maybe it is fear of being liable as a product vendor to faulty sw upgrades.
Regardless of what motivates it, people who sell hardware to such customers (and who also contribute to u-boot) may not want to risk losing that business by pushing GPLv3 on them.
indeed. expecting businesses to push other peoples' agenda isnt realistic, especially when the conversation is pretty much a net customer loss for said businesses. customers arent going to appear because your business is now pushing GPLv3 instead of GPLv2, but they will certainly disappear.
200% agree I can assure you that today If we switch the V2 to the v3 we will lose a lot of customers and soc that use secure boot as example which is not a progression but a problematic regression
And force to give the private key which use to sign the code is not reallist it's a security flaw
so U-Boot will close itself to a lots of business and customers
Best Regards, J.