On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 01:09 -0700, Rob Barris wrote: > 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 ?
Technically, I agree. Politically, I think it better to find a solution for binary distribution. That said, the technical argument probably deserves to win. Others need to provide feedback; I will not dictate our release goals, but I will help lead us to them. > 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. Well, I think there is value to start pumping out releases, regardless of the potential binary distribution problems. I think Rick is right that these can be worked in parallel, and waiting would only hold back everyone that uses source code distribution or can do without FTD2XX. There are few reasons to delay pursuing releases, but I do not want that to prevent distribution solutions from being developed. Due to the recent confusion and scattering to action on new problems, resources are indeterminate at the moment. I cannot say where we stand, so I am reluctant to make any release decisions yet. > c) Aren't there GPL applications on Linux that can load binary DLL's, > I don't know, say the Flash plugin ? I will not comment on other projects, sorry. This stuff is complicated. > d) Is it worth our time to talk to FTDI and see if they can move to > GPL ? LGPL would be fine, but YES YES YES. If you have contacts and leverage, then you are encouraged to use them to this end. The more users that ask them, the more likely they will be to change their minds. I hope. If someone gets a meaningful answer from them that explains why they could never do that, then please post it. If they are simply protecting their library IP, then keep putting pressure on them. Gentle, kind, loving pressure; you know -- the kind that smothers and suffocates. Torches and pitchforks will work better when delivered with a smile and a friendly attitude. We mean business, but we must use the diplomatic approach here -- FTDI has done us no real harm. They are not an enemy, but neither does their present license make them our friend. > e) What concrete benefits does the *existing* OpenOCD derive from > being GPL licensed, as compared to BSD license ? OpenOCD is GPL. The short answer is "enforceable freedoms", but this is not the time or the place to debate licensing pros and cons. Sorry. :) Thanks, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
