On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Freddie Chopin<freddie_cho...@op.pl> wrote: > So in reality I see only two solutions: > > 1. A ftd2xx.dll wrapper library, which would be published under GPL with > exception for ftd2xx.dll. Such library would dynamically link ftd2xx and > - as an open-source solution - could be linked with OpenOCD. This is a > very good proposal made by Herald Kipp and described in detail here: > https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-development/2009-June/008265.html > > 2. A binary patch which would "convert" a libusb+libftdi based > executable to ftd2xx based one. Me and Michael Fisher managed to produce > such patch with bsdiff/bspatch. The patch is 30kB in size and works. >
Here is my two cents as a non-developer and as a OS neutral guy. I think Option 2 is the best if it does not fail to comply with GPL. Again I am not a lawyer. Option 1 is also acceptable if the license holders think it is ok. These two options are not as good as re-licensing but I guess idea of re-licensing (GPL with FTD2xx exception) is already killed by some prominent developers. The developers really need to chime in and express their opinions. -- Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
