On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Freddie Chopin wrote: > 1. Why a "wrapper" library which would be GPL-with-exception-for-ftd2xx > cannot be linked with OpenOCD? I don't see ANY phrase in GPL that says > that GPL can be linked only to 100%-GPL-stuff-without-exceptions. > Moreover - I see no sentence which says that "GPL-chain" has to be > infinite. Really - quote that for me, if the explanations are so simple.
The general rule is that if the binaries run in the same process and/or memory space it forms a "combined work", which must be licensed under the GPL. As always, the GPL FAQ is a recommended read. > 2. I also haven't seen any explanation about the "binary patch", that > would be marked as Non-GPL. Maybe I remember "this violates GPL, > period." explanation, so sorry - I'm not convinced either. Section 2 of the GPLv2 states: "2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: ..." and section 4: "4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. ..." Since section 4 mentions modification separately, my interpretation is that you may not even modify a private copy unless it is done according to the terms of the GPL. Other people may interpret it differently. Anyway, with the amount of people who have expressed their concerns about the Windows version it shouldn't take that long to develop a proper, legally unambiguous solution to this problem rather than trying to hack around it rather than just complaining. Regards, Anders _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
