On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:42, Zach Welch<z...@superlucidity.net> wrote: > On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 11:18 +0200, Magnus Lundin wrote: >> Simple project for a CS student. >> >> A wrapper with a libftdi interface calling libftd2xx, as a project using >> a LGPL license >> >> So any user can take their binary copy of OpenOCD linked against libftdi >> and simply replace the libftdi dll file, no need to play with system >> files or drivers. >> >> Is such a library illegal ? Who would have standing to complain ? > > You are doing it to circumvent the GPL. I think that is illegal. > > You would be contravening this copyright holder's intention, which would > make you liable for any possible infringement that I could show.
If a third party develops a libftdi.dll replacement then there is no reason a user can not use that replacement. The GPL license that applies to the user does not restrict at all what he does with the code or binary as long as he does not distribute binaries of it. Obviously to put the dll wrapper wrapper under a GPL+exceptions license it would have to be written from scratch rather than just copy&pasting GPLed libftdi header files (although one could ask the libfti author to re-license his/her files). > Furthermore, I think individuals can be held liable for "inducing" > infringement, which is where IANAL becomes useful in some respects. > > I have been repeatedly warning _against_ infringement and to consult > with an attorney on any possible solutions that you intend to distribute > in binary form. You should be too. There is no infringement here, so there is nothing to debate. The issue gets a bit murky when the replacement dll is bundled with OpenOCD, but that is not really necessary, the user can load it from elsewhere. >> - FTDI ? no their libray and driver is called in accordance with >> their documentation. >> - OpenOCD ? nobody has touched a single line of OpenOCD code >> - Copyright holders of libftdi, Intra2Net AG ? no, libftdi is LGPL and >> the new library would only use the header file in accordance with LGPL >> section 3. >> >> Would it work? with a bit of tweaking I would think so. >> >> Is this a blatant attempt just to work around the problems with OpenOCD, >> GPL and libftd2xx ? What do I know ? Maybe yes, but that does not make >> it illegal. > > It might. This is a very gray area. For the love of all that is sane, > why do you want to keep pressing these fronts, when other options have > been presented that will solve the problems without any objections? TCP/IP will impose a speed penalty. It may be a nice extension for other purposes, but for daily work it is most likely not the best solution. Michael _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
