On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Freddie Chopin wrote: > > > This *has* been explained. The issue wasn't lack of explanation. > > > > It was unwillingness to *accept* the explanation ... combined > > with not presenting a viable alternative. Some folk clearly > > haven't bothered to read any of the references supplied, much > > less the license in the source files. Such unwillingness does > > not indicate an honest disagreement. IMO it shows dishonesty. > > Is really funny... If you consider "That violates the GPL, period" an > explanation, than go ahead and black-list me, because I don't understand > such "explanations".
I never gave such a non-explanation. You, however, seem not to have looked at the information you were repeatedly given. Or perhaps, just not accepted it. You've certainly received more detailed answers than "period", many times. That makes it very easy to conclude dishonesty is *way* up there in your motives, even if you don't choose to acknowledge that to yourself. (Of course, your repeated proposals to completely ignore, or subvert, the license just emphasise that point.) > Or maybe you already have, and that's the reason > why I haven't received any explanation... The *VERY FIRST* message I sent on the topic referenced: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs Accordingly, your saying you never received any explanation is a lie. Maybe you didn't read it. Maybe you refused to understand it. But you did receive it ... and from more folk than just me. Also see a bit later in that same file: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleAlone Which includes: If a program P is released under the GPL that means *any and every part of it* can be used under the GPL. If you integrate module Q, and release the combined program P+Q under the GPL, that means any part of P+Q can be used under the GPL. One part of P+Q is Q. So releasing P+Q under the GPL says that Q - any part of it - can be used under the GPL. Putting it in other words, a user who obtains P+Q under the GPL can delete P, so that just Q remains, still under the GPL. If the license of module Q permits you to give permission for that, then it is GPL-compatible. Otherwise, it is not GPL-compatible. For "P" read "OpenOCD". For "Q" read FTDI's D2XX library. Quite obviously, FTDI's code is not GPL-compatible; no source available is just the most obvious issue. Q.E.D. > Really - I asked that in several places and no explanation what-so-ever... > > 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. See the first reference above re terminating the chain in system libraries. See my original post where I pointed out relicensing with an exception would be an option. See ... how your first "no explanation" whine was in fact fully addressed at the very beginning of the flamewar you have been feeding. > Quote the license and explain to me, why it forbids me to distribute any > of that Why don't you explain why this is such a burr under your saddle. Are you a distributor? If so, why aren't you having this conversation with your own legal team? _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
