Zach Welch pisze: > If all of OpenOCD's users chipped in, I bet each > of you would pay less than any commercial alternative.
You forgot something [; I don't need to pay for anything, nor does anyone else. I can build my own executable with ftd2xx. If you will drop that support, I'll just stay with the most recent one that has it. Others can do whatever they want - use free versions of commercial software, use cracked versions of commercial software, reinstall the system (via some ghost-copy mechanism it takes less than 15minutes) every month when the free CrossWorks license ends... So sorry, no money from me. Your idea behind open-source is very noble indeed. > You are spreading FUD. Please. Stop. Now. Why? You - on the other hand - are all "that violates GPL, period", so you're spreading "GPL-or-die". Please. Stop. Now. Any realistic solution is "violating the GPL" according to you, that's a pure "No, because that's what I say" attitude. If that is so obvious that a wrapper-lib with GPL-with-exception or binary-patch violates that licence that would be no problem for you to prove that for me... Because now I think that it violates only your view of GPL. I've read this license and I just don't see any paragraph that forbids linking any GPL-ed code with exceptions to a GPL-ed software. Where it is said, that this 100%-GPL-chain has to be infinite? Why is a patch violating the license? That would be marked as clearly Non-GPL, so where is the problem? 4\/3!! _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
