On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 11:49 +0200, Laurent Gauch wrote:
> >
> > >>/ Øyvind mentioned the idea of wrapping the JTAG API in TCP/IP. Aside
> > />>/ from performance implications I think this would require some
> > />>/ significant development efforts with little immediate benefits. Even
> > />>/ worse, it would encourage other JTAG interface vendors to implement
> > />>/ their JTAG interface layer as a binary only driver that talks to the
> > />>/ OpenOCD via TCP/IP layer, too.
> > />/
> > />/I am opposed to this as well, for the same reasons. This is why I did
> > />/not suggest it until someone else suggested it. I want to see libusb
> > />/and libfdti fixed, and I do not want to open the door to more binary
> > />/drivers. If I were to implement the TCP/IP interface without pay, I
> > />/would release it under the GPL to prevent this situation from ever
> > />/occurring. At this point, I am tempted to implement it simply in order
> > />/to close this back door to binary drivers.
> > /
> > Zach,
> > This sounds very contraproductive to me. You have been doing a lot of great
> > work but if the maintainers of OpenOCD are not open for solutions that just
> > work in a real world you'll find that people (JTAG dongle manufacturors for
> > starters) will start to fork OpenOCD in seperate projects which results in
> > various versions. That would be a waste of your efforts.
> >
> > I really fail to see the real world problem when mixing open and closed
> > source parts. If you contribute to an open source project you know someone
> > will make money with the software you wrote but didn't get paid for. So be
> > it.
> >
> > Perhaps the best way is to link against the closed source driver until
> > there is an open source alternative that works just as well. Closed source
> > drivers are going to be a problem anyhow since getting a 64 bit Windows
> > driver signed is not free. It is also becoming easier to write software
> > that runs on both Linux and Windows. Therefore it is very likely that more
> > open source projects will run into similar problems. So 'closing the door'
> > may actually backfire in worse ways than you can imagine now. Maybe the GPL
> > license has expired. Many bigger projects are published under other
> > licenses like BSD, Mozilla, etc or even have dual licensing like MySQL. GPL
> > 3 has seen a lot of debate before being finalized. Those are the real signs
> > on the wall!
> >
> > Nico Coesel
> You're right, Nico Coesel.
>
> There is the ideal world and the real world.
Okay. In this real world, the license is GPL. You are both wrong, and
you are pressing an issue that needs to be dropped. It has been
resolved by the community, whether or not you like the resolution.
> One month ago, we, Amontec Team, asked customers to know how many was
> working with OpenOCD on Windows and/or on Linux with our Amontec
> JTAGkey. The result on 247 users :
> - 85% windows
> - only 10% use both windows and Linux
> - about 95% use FTd2xx driver (on windows or linux).
>
> Before talking too much about GPL issue ... bla bla bla ... we should
> ask us some basic questions related to the success of OpenOCD project
> itself:
"bla bla bla". You, sir, show a big lack of respect for the license.
Normally, I would not bother reading anything else that you have
written, since you clearly do not respect the license of the code.
> {LOOP}
> WHY OPENOCD IS NOW POPULAR (2009) :
> - because it is Open Source
> - because the initial Dominic's work was excellent (2004)
> - because there are a lot of end-users( since 2005)
> WHY THERE ARE A LOT OF END-USERS :
> - because OPENOCD works on windows since end-of-2005, close to the begin
> of OpenOCD
> - because easy USB JTAG solutions was provided via FTd2xx as the Amontec
> JTAGkey. The FTd2xx was and is faster than libftdi and was more stable.
> The FT2232 provide an cheap solution.
> - because Yagarto / sdk4arm (MS) was providing an ideal out-of-the-box
> for 85% of end-users
> WHY A LOT OF NEW DEVELOPERS
> - because the OpenOCD project IS popular
> {LOOP WHILE OPENOCD IS POPULAR}
>
> I really think the GPL license must be respected , but we are all in the
> same world. And this world is never IDEAL as we want!
It seems fairly clear that you do not want to respect it. You want an
exception to it, which is not respect in my book. That's disrespect for
it and the free software community in general.
> Is an Open Source project must be GPL at all?
> Is OpenOCD installed/used because it is Open Source, because it is GPL,
> or because it works !
I use and contribute to it because it is GPL. Period. OpenOCD sucks
compared to some other tools -- you do realize that, right? I am trying
to fix and improve it _only_ because it was licensed to me under GPL,
without any exceptions that would make it incompatible with everything.
> Also, the FTD2XX is just an important part of the success of OpenOCD !
Let's ask a more fundamental questions: Why should I care about what
you think in these matters? What have you done for the community lately
to earn our respect? Almost without exception, I have seen you
contribute virtually nothing in the past few months; in fact, your
biggest contribution has been to incite past flame wars.
I find these facts shockingly embarrassing for someone selling products
and thus profiting from the open source community's work. Personally,
I think you should be ashamed of yourself and your behavior; you help
show the opposite of what an ideal free software contributor is.
Reality does suck for us idealists; that does not mean we are wrong.
Look, your past contributions to this project were appreciated, but
nothing gives you the right to try to tell other developers how to
manage their copyrights for the OpenOCD project. OpenOCD is GPL. That
is reality, and you need to suck it up and deal with it. As I have told
others, there are viable solutions, but there is absolutely zero chance
that I will change my mind on this issue -- and that ends _any_ chances.
You might as well be talking to a stone wall. You will change nothing.
Cheers,
Zach
_______________________________________________
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
