This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sourceware.org
mailing list for the eCos project.
RE: RedBoot banner
- From: "Chris Zimman" <czimman at bloomberg dot com>
- To: "Jonathan Larmour" <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>
- Cc: "eCos discuss list" <ecos-discuss at ecos dot sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 18:51:59 -0500
- Subject: RE: [ECOS] RedBoot banner
> I would /like/ it to say it's got the eCos GPL derivative, but I believe
> it would be a requirement to comply with 2(c) of the GPL, which implies
> more than that.
OK, well the standard "I am not a lawyer" applies here for me, so I digress.
> Actually I don't like the verbosity myself either, you seem to be thinking
> I do :-).
Sorry, I understood wrongly
> An alternative is to shove some of this into the 'version' command
> specifically so that while a manual invocation of the version command is
> more verbose, the banner isn't in which case the banner could be e.g. with
> Sergei's example:
>
> RedBoot(tm) bootstrap and debug environment [ROM]
> Version UNKNOWN - built 12:06:17, Feb 2 2009
>
> Copyright (C) 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> RedBoot is free software. Type 'version' for license and warranty terms.
>
> Platform: Olimex LPC-H2294 header board (ARM7TDMI-S)
> RAM: 0x81000000-0x81100000, [0x81005900-0x810e1000] available
> FLASH: 0x80000000-0x803fffff, 8 x 0x2000 blocks, 63 x 0x10000 blocks
> RedBoot>
>
> I don't think this is strictly compliant with 2(c) in the letter, but it
> is in the spirit and I don't have an issue with it.
>
> Ok compromise?
For my $.02, that's pretty fair.
--Chris
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss