On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Ronald Vanschoren<yahoogro...@lieron.be> wrote: > >> 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 > Lots of people have, even you, it's called GPL v2. Please read my > earlier post where I point out FTD2xx is not different from NVIDIA > binary Linux kernel modules.
I'm not satisfied that this argument is robust, nor that it translates very well into the goal of open source target support. > I'm happy to let this go when someone comes up with a workable > alternative, but unfortunately there isn't one atm. There are, after a week, several technical solutions proposed. Have a bit of faith in the engineers and eyeballs that are looking at this. Wouldn't you rather we stuck to GPL and found a techincal solution? Is there a reason you want to violate GPL over a technical solution? A technical solution is a million times easier at this point. > If needed, make an addendum to GPL v2, describing this specific case in > the most detail possible so it can't be abused for anything else. You > can even add "only what <some name> says is accepted" if you're paranoid. It's not acceptable to give FTDI an unfair advantage over other hardware vendors(target or interface). You'd have to come up with something that didn't mention FTDI, nor USB. Oh, and we can't change the license. It's a non-starter w/the # of copyright holders. Not in any reasonable timeframe anyway. -- 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
