> This is _very_ apt observation, and one I almost forgot myself. > Thanks ;-) > As (I think) you say here, the Linux kernel module scenario does not > affect the legality of a loadable module in the same user-space process > as OpenOCD. The module still violates the GPL when distributed, since > it would be derived in part from the type and API definitions provided > by the driver interface header files. Thus, binaries of the driver > module could not be distributed. > The situation with Linux is a little more gray and I was kinda hoping nobody would notice. Some API from Linux is outside GPL (like systemcalls and some other). This is probably how NVIDIA makes a full closed source kernel module. But even if it wasn't so, only the translation layer between Linux API and closed source library has to be released. The translation layer is obviously derived work, but anything past that obviously is not. This is basically the same OpenOCD would do: release everything up to FTD2XX API. > However, I have mentioned that modular drivers could allow a build-kit > to only produce that single driver from source, though the "build" > requirements still get out of control. The latest "link-kit" idea would > be perfect for this though! Modular drivers are still a Good Thing. > Link-kit is definitely better then build-kit, but what are we doing here? Dynamic linking is also a "link-kit". In my interpretation of GPL, there is nothing illegal to distributing an OpenOCD binary that _CAN_ link to FTD2XX but doesn't require it. We (OpenOCD community) would not distribute FTD2XX ourselves, but point users to the FTDI download page and say "if you download the DLL and put it in the OpenOCD directory, something magic could happen". I'm assuming here it's not legal to distribute FTD2xx, I don't know about that as I don't know what license it's available under. It's all gray here, but won't somebody please think of the chil^H^H^H^H users. We must assume they are not very much into building/linking.
As you might have noticed I'm one of the "loose" people regarding this GPL thing, but on the other hand I'm not too keen on binary modular drivers. At least the translation layer should be GPL'd and the binary part should be publicly available. This opens a lot of doors, but maybe some we don't want to open... gr. Ronald _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
