On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 19:19 +0200, Harald Kipp wrote: > Øyvind Harboe wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Michael > > Schwingen<rincew...@discworld.dascon.de> wrote: > >> Harald Kipp wrote: > >>> This is easier to implement than what I suggested: Building an > >>> intermediate LGPL'ed DLL which links OpenOCD with FTD2XX. > >>> > >> I don't see how that solves the GPL problem: as soon as the FTD2XX > >> library is linked into openocd, it is not OK to distribute - having an > >> intermediate do the linking does not change the legal status, IMHO - but > >> IANAL. > > > > I'm not a GPL expert, but this still sounds like trying to circumvent the > > license problem and is no different than LoadLibrary() vs. implicit > > LoadLibrary(). > > Sorry for those convoluted language constructions. We Germans love to > create complicated sentences, although they typically lead to confusion. > > Simple version: > > 1. Someone creates a dummy FTD2XX library, published under LGPL. This > library does not contain any FTDI-code, just dummies which contain the > same entry names, but always return errors. > > 2. This library can be distributed with the OpenOCD executable, enabled > for FT2232 support. OpenOCD will run flawlessly, but of course not work > with Turtelizer 2 or similar hardware. It will work with other adapters. > > 3. The user can replace this dummy with the original libraries, > downloadable from FTDI's website. Now OpenOCD will work with FT2232 > based adapters.
I believe this would be illegal circumvention of the GPL. For these kinds of machinations to be acceptable, the "dummy" library needs to actually function in a comparable manner; that would mean implementing a full wrapper for libftdi using the FTD2XX APIs. Otherwise, you would be distributing a binary version of OpenOCD for the express purpose of it being linked to the proprietary FTD2XX drivers. You really would not be doing anything different, and I would object strenuously to this approach. I seriously doubt it would be legal. As far as I am concerned, you are looking for a way to maintain your status quo, and I understand your desire to do so. Honestly, any form of working dummy library pisses me off, but there may be nothing that I can do about it (assuming it was done properly). Well, I suppose that I can state that I would never commit it to the repository myself. Regardless, your unwillingness to contribute to a good solution -- one that would be acceptable to its major contributors -- undermines my perception of your open source integrity and that of your business. Be advised: I am starting to visualize torches and pitchforks. I am actually surprised that no one has posted links to these threads on a popular aggregation site; this kind of situation is chum in the water for real GPL sharks. You will quickly find that I am very reasonable when compared to such extremists. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
