On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Harald Kipp<harald.k...@egnite.de> wrote: > Freddie Chopin wrote: > >> About posts by Herald and Pavel - I personally agree totally with you, >> but - as you've already noticed - some maintainers just don't share our >> point of view, and I think there is no way of convincing them - they >> just don't want to be convinced. > > Freddie, first of all many thanks that you jumped in and started this work. > > I'd welcome, if you finally post a patch in this list. Even if none of > the maintainers commit it (which I can't imagine), it would be still of > great value to many of us.
Zach already posted a list of known acceptable alternatives, so if you have something that is *not* on that list, then it would be a good idea to check with the list. Perhaps that list should contain a list of known *unacceptable* alternatives. :-) (Or did it? I don't recall). Transparent attempts at circumventing GPL was one of the unacceptable alternatives. It goes without saying(doesn't it?) that if you make changes to OpenOCD and that patch is rejected because it's use would be a breach of GPL, then the use of such a patch, even if it is not committed to the official tree is *still* breach of GPL. (If anyone reads this and wonder why I'm such a GPL nutty, here's a reminder: I would never have gotten involved in OpenOCD if there was a loophole that could be exploited to implement closed source target support. GPL is the best line of defence against closed source target drivers, even if it's a royal PITA sometimes.) -- Øyvind Harboe Embedded software and hardware consulting services http://www.zylin.com _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
