On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Ronald
Vanschoren 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 comm
> 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'
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:03 PM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Sunday 28 June 2009, Ronald Vanschoren wrote:
>> As said before, I am also against closed source target support,
>> but I don't consider FTD2xx a closed source target.
>
> Good! We've been wanting to have source to that library.
>
> What
>> 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 cl
On Sunday 28 June 2009, Ronald Vanschoren wrote:
> As said before, I am also against closed source target support,
> but I don't consider FTD2xx a closed source target.
Good! We've been wanting to have source to that library.
What's the ftdichip.com URL for downloading *SOURCE* code
to that driv
Original Message
Subject: [Openocd-development] Dynamic library loading
From: Øyvind Harboe
To: Ronald Vanschoren
Cc: openocd-development
Date: Sun Jun 28 2009 20:39:05 GMT+0200 (Romance Standard Time)
> (Lots of stuff deleted from your mail. Nothing is intended
> b
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
librar
On Sunday 28 June 2009, Ronald Vanschoren wrote:
> Note: This is an HTML message. For security reasons, only
> the raw HTML code is shown. If you trust the sender of
> this message then you can activate formatted HTML display
> for this message by clicking here.
I'll repeat my suggestion that e
>> I totally can't follow anymore, but are you one of the GPL purists?
Having give this some further thought, I don't think I can be called
a GPL purist.
I chose FreeBSD for Jim Tcl and the HDL implementation of the ZPU.
It's a matter of choosing a license which is effective at achieving
the goa
(Lots of stuff deleted from your mail. Nothing is intended
by that other than that I couldn't really think of a reply.)
> Can you please stop talking in riddles and just write what you want to say?
Am I always talking in riddles or just this once?
> This change is absolutely not a breach of GP
Original Message
Subject: [Openocd-development] Dynamic library loading
From: Øyvind Harboe
To: Harald Kipp
Cc: openocd-development
Date: Sun Jun 28 2009 19:59:55 GMT+0200 (Romance Standard Time)
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Harald Kipp wrote:
Freddie
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Harald Kipp 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
Pavel Chromy escreveu:
> David Brownell napsal(a):
>> And that's why GPL restricts distribution of GPL
>> software with non-Free libraries. If it didn't,
>> then the users relying on the non-Free code would
>> not have the full set of Freedoms intended by GPL.
>
> however, here we speak about d
David Brownell wrote:
> On Friday 26 June 2009, Harald Kipp wrote:
>> The intention of GPL is to explicitly give users the
>> freedom to use GPL software in any way they see fit.
>
> Assuming "use" doesn't include depriving others of such
> freedoms ... that's just *ONE* of its intentions
>
> Ano
Hello David,
David Brownell napsal(a):
> And that's why GPL restricts distribution of GPL
> software with non-Free libraries. If it didn't,
> then the users relying on the non-Free code would
> not have the full set of Freedoms intended by GPL.
however, here we speak about distributing binary W
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 a
On Friday 26 June 2009, Harald Kipp wrote:
> The intention of GPL is to explicitly give users the
> freedom to use GPL software in any way they see fit.
Assuming "use" doesn't include depriving others of such
freedoms ... that's just *ONE* of its intentions
Another is to be able to *keep doing* t
Pavel Chromy pisze:
> Harald Kipp napsal(a):
AFAIK, adding support for a non-compliant DLL in GPL code is not
circumventing any GPL clause that I know of, neither directly not
indirectly.
>>> so is your belief that it is GPL compliant to also distribute
>>> GPLed binary that includes
Harald Kipp napsal(a):
>>> AFAIK, adding support for a non-compliant DLL in GPL code is not
>>> circumventing any GPL clause that I know of, neither directly not
>>> indirectly.
>> so is your belief that it is GPL compliant to also distribute
>> GPLed binary that includes support for a closed DLL w
Hi Pavel,
Pavel Chromy wrote:
>> AFAIK, adding support for a non-compliant DLL in GPL code is not
>> circumventing any GPL clause that I know of, neither directly not
>> indirectly.
>
> so is your belief that it is GPL compliant to also distribute
> GPLed binary that includes support for a close
Hello Harald and the list,
Harald Kipp napsal(a):
> It's perfectly legitimate to _distribute_ a *GPL compliant* DLL with
> GPL'ed executables.
>
> It's perfectly legitimate to _run_ a *non GPL compliant* DLL with GPL'ed
> executables. The intention of GPL is to explicitly give users the
> freedom
Hi Øyvind,
Originally I intended to let the discussion settle and see how things
develop. Looks like there are still misunderstandings and I can't resist...
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Under Windows an executable will fail to load if it links
> implicitly to a dll even if that dll is not used.
When
> FWIW, this will not bring GPL-compliance. Is that the goal, or just
> loadable library support? I am in favor of this later, but I thought
> you were pushing for the former.
Under Windows an executable will fail to load if it links
implicitly to a dll even if that dll is not used.
It's prefec
Zach Welch pisze:
> FWIW, this will not bring GPL-compliance.
How could that possibly bring GPL compliance?
> Is that the goal, or just
> loadable library support? I am in favor of this later, but I thought
> you were pushing for the former.
Later.
> I want to see a patch before commenting abo
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 22:25 +0100, Spencer Oliver wrote:
> > > you are using the wrong calling convention if this happens.
> > > Note the WINAPI
> >
> > Dude - you rule! That was exactly the problem - I've copied
> > the typedef for pointers from msdn and the example used
> > __cdecl instead of
> > you are using the wrong calling convention if this happens.
> > Note the WINAPI
>
> Dude - you rule! That was exactly the problem - I've copied
> the typedef for pointers from msdn and the example used
> __cdecl instead of WINAPI.
> Changing that with your suggestion fixed the problem [;
>
Michael Fischer pisze:
> this looks great. If you need someone for testing,
> give me a note.
>
> Does it mean you need for each interface a dll?
> In this case, perhapse I can try to "translate"
> an interface for you.
Unfortunatelly I'm not trying to implement drivers/modularity in
OpenOCD,
Spencer Oliver pisze:
> you are using the wrong calling convention if this happens.
> Note the WINAPI
Dude - you rule! That was exactly the problem - I've copied the typedef
for pointers from msdn and the example used __cdecl instead of WINAPI.
Changing that with your suggestion fixed the proble
>
> The FT_Read is executed (via a function pointer of course),
> and it returns. There is no OpenOCD error (so some status is
> returned, the number of bytes is ok, and so on). The function
> gets to it's end, but never returns to the caller. Windows
> shows "access violation" exception, so I
Hello list!
I'm trying to make loading of libraries dynamic, so that those would not
be required always - just when needed.
I've created globals for function pointers, library handle. I open the
library - everything is cool. I get processes addresses - still cool. I
use some functions - cool.
30 matches
Mail list logo
