Anders Montonen pisze: > 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.
So that is impossible to have a GPL with exception project. Such project could not be used by any other GPL project, thus making such code worthless... >> 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. ..." I wouldn't be distributing any Program, not it's modified version (Modification). Just a patch that would enable user to change his executable to some other executable. > 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. Indeed which brings the next question? Why do you "the most extreme interpretation" take as the one that is true, and "the softer interpretation" as false? > 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. Again - not everyone here is a developer, there are many users here, who just wish OpenOCD to be what is was, not another Uber-GPL code for l33t users. 4\/3!! _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
