On Jun 23, 2009, at 19:54, Freddie Chopin wrote: > Anders Montonen pisze: >> 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...
There is no problems in using GPL code together with GPL+exception code. Combining all of that with with code under some third license depends on a number of things. Again, see the GPL FAQ. >> "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. Right, but section four says "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, *or* distribute the Program" (emphasis added). If it just concerned distribution then there would be no room for interpretation. >> 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? Why do you consider it OK to ignore a license just because it inconveniences you? Do you hold the same view regarding things you create? >> 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. Everyone who uses OpenOCD is a developer in some capacity. Like all community software, development happens on a voluntary basis. If you want something done you must be prepared to either do it yourself or hire someone to do it. Look at it as an opportunity to learn some new skills. Regards, Anders _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
