>> I do *lots* of closed source development. It's what puts bread on the >> table really, so I don't do GPL exclusively. >> > GPL purists (in this case) are the people that are against linking with > FTD2xx.
Then, yes, I'm a terrorist. >> Iron clad guarantees that we don't create loopholes for closed source >> target support > As said before, I am also against closed source target support, but I > don't consider FTD2xx a closed source target. It's not different from > using a serial or parallel port. You don't expect to have access to the > serial/parallel port driver do you? The "intelligence" is in how you use > the low level drivers, not in those generic parts. "If you chase away my devils, then my angels may leave too." If we, the maintainers, don't nitpick at GPL compliance, then who's going to take us seriously when a *real* issue crops up that we *do* need conformance on? One issue on which the mob on this list comes *do* come crying for help? Nobody has yet posted a license to this list that would make it possible to consider a scenario where it OpenOCD would only allow honorable linking with closed source that could not be exploited in some insidious way by a commercially orientated villain. -- 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
