From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17833 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2009 16:23:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 17824 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2009 16:23:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mgcn1.bloomberg.com (HELO mgcn1.bloomberg.com) (199.172.169.46) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:23:21 +0000 Received: from ny1520.bloomberg.com ([10.16.11.97]) by mgcn1.bloomberg.com with ESMTP; 16 Jan 2009 11:22:15 -0500 Received: from NY2528-DR.corp.bloomberg.com (smtp.corp.bloomberg.com [10.14.21.30]) by ny1520.bloomberg.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n0GGNDKJ026314; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:23:13 -0500 Received: from ny2545.corp.bloomberg.com ([172.20.73.98]) by NY2528-DR.corp.bloomberg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:23:13 -0500 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Serial VS Diagnostic interface Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:23:00 -0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <69b5c5160901160819q49b2975cg275d1f8b7c4b0c66@mail.gmail.com> References: <69b5c5160901131157x14de6cdek72b7b8c86455a709@mail.gmail.com> <69b5c5160901140502x62d7e748uc65136d473f83fb@mail.gmail.com> <587ce2cd0901140529h562f0daasa0d8dfde252249bf@mail.gmail.com> <587ce2cd0901140657kb59c6d9k20e0075ef8ba98d@mail.gmail.com> <69b5c5160901160819q49b2975cg275d1f8b7c4b0c66@mail.gmail.com> From: "Chris Zimman" To: "andrew wiggin" , X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-devel-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-devel-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-01/txt/msg00032.txt.bz2 > Actually, my UART (which is a synthetisable IP eventually), has a > slight modification from the original 16X5X behavior. I have added a > DEFINE in order to declare an extra register and do some extra checks > in the Init and DSR functions. > This is quite an odd situation, because the documentation of the IP is > subject to non disclosure, but the fact that I modified some GPL code > means I should provide my modifications. I have thought of two > solutions: continuing with my old driver so that no GPL applies, or > propose a patch with the modifications without documenting for which > IP vendor it applies, and in which configuration... If this is IP that was customized by you (eg. presumably specific to a given part), why would a patch need to go back into the mainline tree? WRT what the NDA covers in terms of the documents and how the GPL affects a= ll of that, you'd probably better get clarification from a lawyer.