Hello list! Wookey napsal(a): > +++ Freddie Chopin [2009-06-24 16:56 +0200]: >> Important Qestion - Is OpenOCD meant for users to use, or just to be >> "100%-GPL-at-any-cost"?
Good question! GPL is to bring free software to users, to support evolution of software, this is what was meant when the license was created. There may be many examples found when literal interpretation of legal documents does not end up with the aim of its author, some examples may be found in law. That is why there are courts and juries - otherwise a case could be decided by some robot or artificial intelligence. What I state here is not lack of respect to the license but what I ask for is to interpret GPL as it was meant, not in some kind of tendentious way. We have to understand the real sense and meaning of the license, its PURPOSE, not just read it as sequence of words - legal document is NOT a computer program so just don't read it like a compiler. > We need to just fix the problem for users (by getting a > licence-compatible USB driver for windows people who currently don't > have one). Here we go... ftd2xx is part of the driver, thus we may think about it as part of the hardware. OpenOCD, compared to other projects, is a bit specific in that it requires hw connectivity solution and there has to be a way to communicate with hw. If OpenOCD communicates with some driver backend over TCP, it would be 100% OK with literal interpretation of GPL. The question is: Would it make the code better in any sense? Would it make the code more free? (Remember GPL is about liberty.) I say no, this would not make any difference. This problem touches virtually any software using closed hw connectivity solution. An example: if I program an extension or connector (wrapper) for some closed library, which enables it to be conveniently used and I would like release the source to the public am I forbidden to use GPL license for my work just because it (by definition - as it is aim of the project) links to a closed library? Yes or no? Application for tweaking graphics card chip of certain manufacturer might be another example. No doubt that using LGPL would be a better choice, but again, am I forbidden to use GPL? In the light if the examples above: the project was started by Dominic Rath, and he included support ftd2xx. This is very important, because this was his choice - the choice of the only one author that day. Isn't it similar? OpenOCD links with ftd2xx "by definition" from the days the project was started. So ftd2xx was originally meant to be linked to OpenOCD, it was not added later. Dominic, please correct me, if I am wrong. Nevertheless it would be fine if this issue is finally fixed so that no more nitpickers could bother the community by reopening it. Please do not take the above as call for ignoring licensing issues, it is not meant like that, the point is: overinterpretting legal documents may lead to really absurd situations, this is what we have to bear in mind. Best regards, Pavel _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
