On Sunday 21 June 2009, Magnus Lundin wrote: > > > Yes the licence is GPL, and there are no exceptions stated, unfortunatley. > > It is definitly possible to add an exception to allow linking to non GPL > libraries and still remain GPL, but it is not possible to force derived > GPL works to do the same: > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs > We only need the consent of the copyright holders.
All of them... I posted a list of about fifty holders not long ago, which I don't believe is complete (given I spent only a few minutes grepping the source tree to find it, and some of the copyright statements surely didn't turn up that way > All long time developers of OpenOCD has been aware of the status of the > libftd2xxx as proprietary code, have not been complaining and as such > have been promoting this use. Or they have been living under a rock for > the last couple of years. Right, they have been aware that personal builds could use that code. And they've also been aware that the license is GPL and thus does not support *distribution* of code using that. > So perhaps it is time to formalize this exception to GPL that we have > been accepting for years and add the exception to the licence in our code. > I can tell you all that I have no objections to adding this exception to > linking against a non GPL library as far as my contributions to OpnenOCD > are concerned. > > If anybody decides otherwise then that is his right but as far as I > can understand it is possible to add this exception and still keep > OpenOCD as GPL code. Possible, yes, with about fifty more folk agreeing ... :) _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
