> Timothy Clacy wrote: > > For Windows users, *please* continue to link to the D2XX import > > library, as you always have done. Switching to an alternative would > > only be acceptable if you: > > > Please stop. This has been discussed enough already.
According to my overflowing inbox, this is very much in discussion. > openocd will continue to support linking against the D2XX > library, and such binaries may not be distributed - that is > mandated by the current licence, and it is at it is, like it or not. > > Discussions asking the developers to break their own license > are not useful, and requests to do so will not increase the > will to provide a real solution. I'm not asking you to break anything; I'm merely suggesting doing nothing is an option worth considering. OpenOCD has been a very useful project for many years exactly as it is. > All these "let's just ignore the GPL, or assume that an > exception was there, even if we could not see it" discussions > have made me realize that I am now not very keen on allowing > a license change. > > > 1) Don't break other tools that do use D2XX for the same > JTAG hardware > > 2) Allow channel B to be used as a standard COM port > > 3) Ensure performance must be at least as good > > > > > > If you can't do all of the above, you'll kill OpenOCD for use on > > Windows. > > > You are free to contribute to make openocd more useful for > Windows users. Putting up demands without an offer to bring > those goals closer does not work in an open-source project. > > Personally, I would pursue options for keeping things the > way they are. Some might say arguing against a blunder is a useful contribution for Windows users, like myself. > Fine. The way things are is that no binary linked against the > D2XX library may be distributed, so there is no change on the > status quo. > > > A couple of observations lead me to think that FTDI intend > their D2XX > > driver to be used by anyone using products with their devices in: > > > > 1) The driver is publicly available *and* advertised... > with example > > projects! > > > > 2) A statement: > > "The driver may be distributed in any form as long as > our license > > information is not modified." > > > The driver is not the problem, the library is. And as long as > the library 's license makes any kind of additional > restriction, I believe it is not compatible with the GPL - but IANAL. The library merely provides a friendly API to the driver. You don't need to link to the library in order to use the driver; it's a convenience provided by the manufacturer for software developers like us... so why find reasons not to use it. > > I've found FTDI very helpful in the past so I've e-mailed > them to ask > > for their stance on this. As a British company, we should expect > > sanity to prevail. In the mean time, how about a 'make' option for > > those of a nervous disposition, to avoid linking with > FTDI's import library: > > > > make --enable-paranoid-mode > > > We do have those - you can specify what kind of > library/backend to use during configure (--enable-xxx) > > cu > Michael > > _______________________________________________ > Openocd-development mailing list > Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development > > _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
