On Monday 22 June 2009, Rick Altherr wrote: > > On Jun 22, 2009, at 7:56 PM, David Brownell wrote: > > > I would like my mailbox to stop getting filled with "how can > > we circumvent this software license" crap too. Just stop; if > > the license bothers you, work to change it not circumvent it. > > (Or start your own project with a proprietary license.) > > > > Certain People were on the verge of getting blacklisted... > > > > In your personal mailbox or from the list? I certainly hope not the > latter.
Right, my mailbox. I don't manage the list. > There were at least 3 separate threads going and it was > getting difficult to keep track of what options were reasonable/valid/ > popular. I highly doubt the intent was solely to defeat the GPL, Certain People were clearly advocating just ignoring the license. That's crap that nobody should put up with for free software. It's not like we're the RIAA and trying to change license terms (remove "fair use") while ripping off the actual creators, purely to benefit vampiric middlemen. It's simple: code has licence G, follow it, QED. > but > rather to provide an option that doesn't create undue hardship for > either users or developers. Not everyone is an expert on the GPL and > so those who understand why a given option can't be used to comply > with the GPL should explain those reasons to those suggesting the > option. This *has* been explained. The issue wasn't lack of explanation. It was unwillingness to *accept* the explanation ... combined with not presenting a viable alternative. Some folk clearly haven't bothered to read any of the references supplied, much less the license in the source files. Such unwillingness does not indicate an honest disagreement. IMO it shows dishonesty. > While I understand the difficulties in resolving this problem, there > has been a prevailing feeling that the few staunch GPL supporters have > been quick to say No to options without explaining in full _why_ it > won't work. I've felt that the GPL supporters have even acted with > hostility to anyone proposing ideas that don't happen to meet all the > requirements. Those requirements being ... either (a) conform to the current license, or (b) change it. Why should anyone tolerate proposals to violate (a) without (b)? Seriously. It's easy to have a constructive conversation within the scope of (a) and (b). The problem was folk that refused (a) without accepting that the consequence was (b). Loudly. Repeatedly. There's a separate conversation along the lines of "but I thought the license was *really* X not GPL". OK, I can hear that, and not get upset, but in fact there's no real question about what the license is. There's no exception listed anywhere. This is why one reads and understands licences *before* contributing. And that is compatible with the D2XX stuff being purely for personal use, which frankly is what most folk on *THIS* list are doing. Anyone developer who builds the source tree is in personal-use territory. > Education, not exasperation, is the course to be > taken. And before someone is quick to point out that explanations > were provided, yes, some were. When the same proposals were made > again, however, rarely was a reference to the earlier explanation > provided. How many times should one need to repeat "A is A" before people stop asking "Are you sure it's not B instead?" or saying "No matter what proof you give, I believe it's B". Ideally, once is enough. Maybe two or three times. But more than that and the conclusion may seem to be that you are faced with someone who is intent on being unreasonable, not addressing the problem, and just wants to flame. At that point, it's more than reasonable to tune those people out. They're just wasting your time and energy. Fortunately there *ARE* people here who are intent on getting a good solution for the Windows users, and there has been progress on that front. (As well as improved recognition that long term solutions probably require changes there, in part because of code stagnation.) - Dave _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
