Øyvind Harboe wrote: > I believe Harald would have spoken up if the current approach being discussed > was not in GPL compliance(or was a transparent attempt at circumventing it), > but I haven't looked into the details.
Well, not loud...but yes. ;-) After finding myself in the proprietary library trap with OpenOCD once, I'll take extra care not to get caught again. Since now the patch hadn't been committed because of technical/strategic problems, for example the inability to create a single binary, which supports all external libraries. This is not new, but Freddie's patch showed, that it should be possible in general. > The GPL license explains what's acceptable or not, Zach, you or me have > no influence on the matter. ...not even Richard Stallman. AFAIK, all people involved have agreed, that this patch doesn't violate the GPL. Thus, it should be save to apply it to the official release and distribute resulting binaries with FTD2XX support. For packagers, just to make things clear: The patch is GPL as well, even it it's not part of the official repository. You must make sure, that the source including all applied patches are distributed on the same medium as the binaries. And, as stated here several times, you are not allowed to distribute OpenOCD with FTDI's proprietary libraries in a single package. It's the user's decision to combine them. I'm *again* voting for adding a warning, that this will limit the user's freedom. After this list needed several hundred posts to find a solution, how can you expect the same from the casual user? Harald _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
