Dear DAS
This is lion. Nice to meet you.
I'm sending you an e-mail because I have a question about the U-Boot license. I would like to know about the obligation to disclose the U-Boot code currently provided by Xilinx(zynqMP).
1. When we use a commercial OS code called RTEMS, we use U-Boot as the bootloader. At this time, even if RTEMS OS is commercial, if we merge an image such as an open source called U-Boot to make a final image and use it, should I release all the codes? I want to know the scope of disclosure.
Do we even have to disclose commercial RTEMS OS + Application?
2. Or do you see only U-Boot as a separate image, and since the OS is commercial, there is no need to interpret it separately and disclose it?
At this time, should the U-Boot be disclosed according to the license or not? I wonder.
cf) We will just change small part for only definition, but I'm afraid that we have to disclosure our every code of RTEMS and Application.
That's why I'm questing it now.
I know you're busy, but please answer me.
Thank you.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 05:40:19AM +0000, Kang Lion wrote:
Dear DAS
This is lion. Nice to meet you.
I'm sending you an e-mail because I have a question about the U-Boot license. I would like to know about the obligation to disclose the U-Boot code currently provided by Xilinx(zynqMP).
- When we use a commercial OS code called RTEMS, we use U-Boot as the bootloader.
At this time, even if RTEMS OS is commercial, if we merge an image such as an open source called U-Boot to make a final image and use it, should I release all the codes? I want to know the scope of disclosure.
Do we even have to disclose commercial RTEMS OS + Application?
- Or do you see only U-Boot as a separate image, and since the OS is commercial, there is no need to interpret it separately and disclose it?
At this time, should the U-Boot be disclosed according to the license or not? I wonder.
cf) We will just change small part for only definition, but I'm afraid that we have to disclosure our every code of RTEMS and Application.
That's why I'm questing it now.
I know you're busy, but please answer me.
This is a question for your company's lawyers. U-Boot can of course be used to launch a proprietary OS. Changes you make to U-Boot need to comply with the license.
Dear Tom
Thank you for your reply soon. You mean only changed U-boot need to comply with the license? The proprietary OS no need to disclose(don't care) at this time, even if they are merged by one image. right?
waiting for your kindly reply.
Regards Lion
-----Original Message----- From: "Tom Rini"trini@konsulko.com To: "Kang Lion"hkang70@hotmail.com; Cc: "u-boot@lists.denx.de"u-boot@lists.denx.de; "HOON KANG"lionkang70@naver.com; "lionkang@wavetc.com"lionkang@wavetc.com; Sent: 2024-03-12 (화) 03:24:23 (GMT+09:00) Subject: Re: About U-Boot License
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 05:40:19AM +0000, Kang Lion wrote:
Dear DAS
This is lion. Nice to meet you.
I'm sending you an e-mail because I have a question about the U-Boot license. I would like to know about the obligation to disclose the U-Boot code currently provided by Xilinx(zynqMP).
- When we use a commercial OS code called RTEMS, we use U-Boot as the bootloader.
At this time, even if RTEMS OS is commercial, if we merge an image such as an open source called U-Boot to make a final image and use it, should I release all the codes? I want to know the scope of disclosure.
Do we even have to disclose commercial RTEMS OS + Application?
- Or do you see only U-Boot as a separate image, and since the OS is commercial, there is no need to interpret it separately and disclose it?
At this time, should the U-Boot be disclosed according to the license or not? I wonder.
cf) We will just change small part for only definition, but I'm afraid that we have to disclosure our every code of RTEMS and Application.
That's why I'm questing it now.
I know you're busy, but please answer me.
This is a question for your company's lawyers. U-Boot can of course be used to launch a proprietary OS. Changes you make to U-Boot need to comply with the license.
-- Tom
To be clear, having both U-Boot and RTEMS on a flash image together is not considered linking. Having U-Boot start RTEMS by the mechanism that exists upstream today is also not considered linking.
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 09:37:32AM +0900, 강훈 wrote:
Dear Tom
Thank you for your reply soon. You mean only changed U-boot need to comply with the license? The proprietary OS no need to disclose(don't care) at this time, even if they are merged by one image. right?
waiting for your kindly reply.
Regards Lion
-----Original Message----- From: "Tom Rini"trini@konsulko.com To: "Kang Lion"hkang70@hotmail.com; Cc: "u-boot@lists.denx.de"u-boot@lists.denx.de; "HOON KANG"lionkang70@naver.com; "lionkang@wavetc.com"lionkang@wavetc.com; Sent: 2024-03-12 (화) 03:24:23 (GMT+09:00) Subject: Re: About U-Boot License
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 05:40:19AM +0000, Kang Lion wrote:
Dear DAS
This is lion. Nice to meet you.
I'm sending you an e-mail because I have a question about the U-Boot license. I would like to know about the obligation to disclose the U-Boot code currently provided by Xilinx(zynqMP).
- When we use a commercial OS code called RTEMS, we use U-Boot as the bootloader.
At this time, even if RTEMS OS is commercial, if we merge an image such as an open source called U-Boot to make a final image and use it, should I release all the codes? I want to know the scope of disclosure.
Do we even have to disclose commercial RTEMS OS + Application?
- Or do you see only U-Boot as a separate image, and since the OS is commercial, there is no need to interpret it separately and disclose it?
At this time, should the U-Boot be disclosed according to the license or not? I wonder.
cf) We will just change small part for only definition, but I'm afraid that we have to disclosure our every code of RTEMS and Application.
That's why I'm questing it now.
I know you're busy, but please answer me.
This is a question for your company's lawyers. U-Boot can of course be used to launch a proprietary OS. Changes you make to U-Boot need to comply with the license.
-- Tom
participants (3)
-
Kang Lion -
Tom Rini -
강훈