On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 08:34 -0700, Zach Welch wrote: > On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 16:00 +0200, Michael Bruck wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 13:29, Zach Welch<z...@superlucidity.net> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 12:23 +0200, Michael Bruck wrote: > > >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:42, Zach Welch<z...@superlucidity.net> wrote: > [snip] > > >> 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. > > > > > > The intention to design this library for the purpose of circumventing > > > the GPL is being documented on this list. Sure, it's murky, but the > > > discussion only helps to build my case to defend against this option. > > > > Your premise is wrong. The user is not restricted in what he can do > > with the software on his PC. This is crystal clear from the license > > and the FAQ. You can do all sorts of kinky stuff with the software in > > the sanctity of your hard drive, if you want to flip all bits or > > increment all jump addresses by 13 or replace a DLL, that is your > > right under the GPL. > > First, thank you! Yours has been one of the most pleasurable threads to > engage in among these topics, and you have responded exactly as merited. > > Second, you win! You presented -- clearly -- the reasonable case for > why this should be allowed. I sincerely apologize for taking the > contrary view on this particular idea; your points above nailed me to > the tree! It _is_ okay to produce a libftdi-ftd2xx wrapper package that > is ABI compatible with the open source libftdi. Mea culpa.
To the community: Just so everyone is absolutely clear: neither my original opinion nor this one have any legal weight regarding compliance. In fact, the FSF may _not_ agree with my interpretation of this very particular situation, though I would love to hear those arguments too. Personally, you have me convinced, so that should be enough for the community to move forward; however, anyone with a serious stake (i.e. commercial vendors) should assume that other copyright holders may later chose to try and cause trouble. My own present willingness to see this as valid should still be insufficient for the legally cautious. Others could come along, obtain their own GPL derived-work copyright claims, and then demand ransom from the community -- because you have allowed yourself to distribute a solution that cannot be defended in absolute terms. Gray areas suck. I would expect any lawyer working in your interests to advise you to avoid them. However, I again think that Michael made this solution black-and-white to me (or white-and-black?), but I hope no one simply takes our words for it. We're not lawyers. Clearly. We would be billing hours, not posting here! There is no defense other than full compliance, which needs to be fully vetted by your own independent legal counsel. Not me. If you want to protect yourself from future threats fully, you should be sure your measures will ensure you never have compliance problems again. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development