From: Mike Frysinger Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:37:46 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] exports.h and the GPL In-Reply-To: <201202242048.51624.michael@walle.cc> References: <201202241910.36058.michael@walle.cc> <201202241417.20408.vapier@gentoo.org> <201202242048.51624.michael@walle.cc> Message-ID: <201202241737.47769.vapier@gentoo.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Friday 24 February 2012 14:48:51 Michael Walle wrote: > Am Freitag 24 Februar 2012, 20:17:19 schrieb Mike Frysinger: > > On Friday 24 February 2012 13:10:36 Michael Walle wrote: > > > Who is responsible to define which functions are exported? Are the > > > currently exported functions the only ones available to closed source > > > applications or is it possible to add further ones which are needed. > > > > someone posts a request and the maintainers evaluate it. typically the > > exported funcs should be "high level" and not hooks into u-boot > > internals. > > Then i guess there is no way to support a board which has only evil closed > source drivers for its networking card. That is, i can't export > eth_register() to register my ops defined in the blob without violating > the GPL. that certainly goes against the spirit of the export logic (imo) so i'd be against it. the export layer isn't there to support closed sourced drivers the rest of u-boot would utilize. you could ask Wolfgang, but i suspect he will say no. -mike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: