On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 01:50 +0300, Yusuf Caglar AKYUZ wrote: > Zach Welch wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 01:36 +0300, Yusuf Caglar AKYUZ wrote: > >> Zach Welch wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> I will try to summarize the OpenOCD license situation for the community: > >>> > >>> - OpenOCD is licensed under the GPL -- without exceptions. > >>> - Binaries linking to FTD2XX may NOT be distributed. > >>> - Neither static nor shared, direct nor indirect. > >>> - There will be no future exceptions to this rule. > >>> - Past "violations" will not be pursued, but we expect compliance now. > >>> > >>> The "best for open source" solution will be to remedy all deficiencies > >>> in libusb and libftdi, even if that takes more time and labor. This > >>> will provide a fully open source solution for users, which should be > >>> preferred by the community of maintainers, contributors, and vendors. > >>> Conversely, preference to the proprietary driver as a long-term solution > >>> undermines the free software community and the freedoms of its users. > >>> > >>> Until an open software solution manifests itself, there appear to be two > >>> acceptable (if hard) workarounds to distribute binaries to end-users: > >>> > >>> 1) A "build kit" can be distributed that compiles the source code from > >>> scratch on the machine of each user that wants to use the closed FTD2XX > >>> driver. This solution can be developed in time for the 0.2.0 release. > >>> Is someone already working on one and will share it with the community? > >>> > >> I'm currently trying this approach. I'm trying to build latest SVN > >> head and preparing a simple wrapper GUI based on Qt, though it is a > >> little bit slow on my Windows XP virtual machine. > > > > Excellent!! You will be praised highly for delivering such a solution, > > so please keep the community apprised of your progress. > > > > Out of sheer curiosity: how will your Qt wrapper be licensed? :) :) > > > > Whichever license is appropriate, both for OpenOCD and FTD2XX. LGPL > may be?
Actually, I see no reason that it cannot be GPL too. It's "only" a build tool; it will not be linking to either OpenOCD or FTD2XX, right? The full GPL would prevent others from creating proprietary versions of your tool, which may or may not be what you desire personally; however, your license does not impact the licenses of what the tool builds. This is why the "build kit loophole" works: they are totally separate works. Otherwise, a GPL package manager could only build/install GPL packages! Of course, a tool that includes _necessary_ build scripts or components for building OpenOCD would be forced to be GPL (see the license), but that is not what we are talking about. Developers have everything they need to compile everything by hand; you are adding a high-level helper script that ties it all together for users, so it is not "necessary". I hope that others will step forward and correct me if I am wrong on the details, but I hope this generally helps clarify these particular licensing details. Either way, I would consider adding it to the repository in the tools/ directory, if that turns out to be a reasonable plan of action for all. What do you think about that? Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
