On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, David Brownell wrote: > On Sunday 14 June 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > Now... who can make that call? Is there someone with code in OpenOCD > > who is against such a relicensing? > > Not the right process. Every OpenOCD copyright holder must explicitly > agree. Lack-of-NAK is not the same thing as agreement. They contributed > under a particular legal agreement. They can agree to change it later. > It can't be changed for them.
I'm looking for the easy solution first, that is, if only _one_ person provides a NACK then we simply forget about this relicensing idea right away (unless someone is willing to strip out that person's code and rewrite it which is silly IMHO). Personally I'd try to fix the libftdi issue first... if I was using Windows that is. Yet, it must be noted that libftd2xx is dynamically linked on Linux. If the Windows version is also a DLL then it is arguable whether or not they are already linked when the OpenOCD binary is distributed. Currently the library must be available for openocd to execute at all, but if dlopen() was used instead then the libftd2xx usage would be merely equivalent to a plugin. And aren't loadable modules for OpenOCD on the roadmap? Nicolas
_______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
