On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:53 PM, Rick Altherr wrote: > Technically, nothing is required from the project-side. The > infringement happens solely at the time of distribution, not at the > time of authoring or compilation. Since OpenOCD is only released as > source code, the project is not directly affected by any > infringement. Doing nothing still leaves packagers and distributors > open to the possibility of committing infringement rather easily, but > that is still a choice made by them, not us. D2xx is by default > disabled. _If_ we choose to do anything for 0.2.0, it could be as > simple as adding a warning that by having D2xx enabled, the resulting > binaries cannot be distributed.
I have a few questions which I would like each regular contributor to assess, if you can spare a few moments: a) is Rick's last sentence above one that you agree or disagree with ? b) Given the number of revisions and releases of OpenOCD out in the wild, and the lack of any conflict to date (other than the thought experiments posted on the list), do you feel it is a #1 priority to solve for 0.2.0? I have seen a couple of scattered opinions, but am not clear on how a final decision will be made for this release. Statements such as "we must do this" don't fly with me since prior releases have gone out and the Sun did not go nova. c) Aren't there GPL applications on Linux that can load binary DLL's, I don't know, say the Flash plugin ? d) Is it worth our time to talk to FTDI and see if they can move to GPL ? e) What concrete benefits does the *existing* OpenOCD derive from being GPL licensed, as compared to BSD license ? Rob _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
