Hello Zach, Zach Welch napsal(a): > On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 00:21 +0159, Maciej Grela wrote: >> A friend of mine pointed me to the threads concerning >> GPL/windows/building/libftdi/libusb/libd2xx. After reading all this an >> idea came to my head - what if we implement our own GPL/LGPL version >> of libd2xx.dll ? > [snip] > > My concern would be that you would be using a proprietary ABI. > The same idea was suggested, but using the libftdi ABI instead. > So, I am against the first (it's gray!) but can accept the second.
What is wrong about adopting existing ABI, especially when it is designed to talk to a proprietary hw anyway? Whether we use former or latter, OpenOCD would still talk to a proprietary solution and that piece of code cannot be used for anything else. No offense but isn't this sort of GPL madness? It seems to me there is no significant difference which interface we use, but using fd2xx bring one benefit - no necessity to maintain "ftd2xx shim" in addition to its free libftdi reimplementation. Best regards, Pavel _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
