On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 10:52 +0200, Nico Coesel wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Zach Welch [mailto:z...@superlucidity.net] > > Sent: woensdag 24 juni 2009 10:27 > > To: Nico Coesel > > Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de > > Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License > > > > On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 09:46 +0200, Nico Coesel wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > I have offered my services repeatedly to those who need it to help > > > > resolve this situation with technical solutions. Instead, I am > being > > > > asked to give up my GPL copyright claims on the work that I have > done, > > > > without any compensation. Are you kidding me? Under what > obligation > > > am > > > > I required to help others that project from violating the GPL > license? > > > > > > I think Magnus has a good point in saying that the exception for the > > > FTDxx is already there. Not everything needs to be in writing in > order > > > to make it legal. right you can't suddenly revoke. > > > > Are you willing to defend this position in court? Do you think that > > others should take this assertion at face value? There are reason > > contracts are written down, and this kind of crap argument sums them > up. > > It is not crap! If you deviate from a contract long enough then those > deviations become part of the contract. Written or not. Over here there > are several laws dealing with such situations. For instance: if you use > a piece of land for more than 20 years and no-one claims or requires you > to buy or rent that piece of land it is yours. Legally! Like it or not.
This is not land. You can't stake a claim. The GPL has been in the repository since the very beginning, without an exception. It has been posted "no trespassing" since day one. > > I am really getting frustrated by the claim that "everyone knew" about > > the exception. I most certainly did not, and you will have an > > impossible case proving that I accepted these terms in face of the > > in-tree copy of the unadulterated GPL. Those are the terms I > accepted, > > without any exceptions. > > Skeleton in the closet. Nothing to be done about that. You think you > accepted the GPL terms, but you also accepted the exception. There is > enough evidence that the exception existed when you started working on > OpenOCD. 'I didn't know' and 'If I knew before' don't work in court. You are opening some seriously unpleasant areas of legal exploration. You have made me start to wonder if it would be possible to bring some sort of claim of "misrepresentation" against the project authors, were your suggestion to be taken by others. The COPYING file is the standard way of notifying potential authors of a project's license, so I think that I would have a good chance of proving that the authors neglected to inform authors -- whether by intention or accident. Either way, this demonstrates rather clear negligence on the part of the authors, which I believe will defeat your claims. Do you want to keep going down this road? There are more doors that probably remain to be opened, and we can explore them all if you insist. Personally, I want to be done with talking about these matters and start to move on to fix the problems for the community. Sound good? Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
