Zach Welch wrote: > 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? >
I'm not an OpenOCD user under Windows but a tool like this is not hard to implement so I'm willing to integrate further suggestions from Windows users. When this is a complete solution, I guess it will help to include this in tools dir. Thanks, Caglar > Cheers, > > Zach > > _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
