>On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Nico Coesel wrote:
>>>
>>>I *know* there are hardware vendors out there that
>>>are aching to use OpenOCD together with closed source target support,
>>>and they *would* find any tiny loophole and throw money at lawyers to
>>>exploit it.
>>
>> Sorry to hijack thi
> What I state here is not lack of respect to the license but what I ask
> for is to interpret GPL as it was meant, not in some kind of tendentious
> way.
You know, if we *all* were reasonble and would intrepret things in
the best meaning, then we wouldn't need a license at all.
The license is th
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Nico Coesel wrote:
>>
>>I *know* there are hardware vendors out there that
>>are aching to use OpenOCD together with closed source target support,
>>and they *would* find any tiny loophole and throw money at lawyers to
>>exploit it.
>
> Sorry to hijack this message.
>
>I *know* there are hardware vendors out there that
>are aching to use OpenOCD together with closed source target support,
>and they *would* find any tiny loophole and throw money at lawyers to
>exploit it.
Sorry to hijack this message. The whole situation made me wonder about MySQL
several tim
Hi Pavel,
welcome back it's been a while! I hope that you'll stick around
to submit some more good patches. You've contributed lots of nice
stuff in the past!
GPL stops closed source target & interface for OpenOCD.
That's one of the *main* reasons I got involved with OpenOCD in the first place.
Hello list!
Wookey napsal(a):
> +++ Freddie Chopin [2009-06-24 16:56 +0200]:
>> Important Qestion - Is OpenOCD meant for users to use, or just to be
>> "100%-GPL-at-any-cost"?
Good question!
GPL is to bring free software to users, to support evolution of
software, this is what was meant when th
+++ Freddie Chopin [2009-06-24 16:56 +0200]:
> David Brownell pisze:
> > Under the GPL. From the very first public release, that has been
> > part of it. You download it, and the GPL is there. That brings
> > along with it certain rules.
>
> GPL. GPL. GPL... How about Users, Users, Users? Again
David Brownell pisze:
> "Users" that have only invective to "contribute" aren't
> helping the community.
You have clearly mistaken me for someone else, so I'll just end this
particular thread.
4\/3!!
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-develop
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> > Notice the complete disregard of technical arguments here.
> >
> > That's a good sign that the person making the argument has no real
> > contribution to make, beyond invective.
>
> That's probably because I'm a USER, not a contributor. Quite s
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 16:56 +0200, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> GPL. GPL. GPL... How about Users, Users, Users? Again - The Most
> Important Qestion - Is OpenOCD meant for users to use, or just to be
> "100%-GPL-at-any-cost"?
>
> > You're the ONLY one advocating a "we-don't-care-for-X" mindset.
>
>
David Brownell pisze:
> Notice the complete disregard of technical arguments here.
>
> That's a good sign that the person making the argument has no real
> contribution to make, beyond invective.
That's probably because I'm a USER, not a contributor. Quite simple.
> Under the GPL. From the very
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Orin Eman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Duane Ellis
>> wrote:
>>
>> > All is not rosy and perfect, "WinUSB" would require an INF file that
>> > *points* to the driver - much like the work that
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Duane Ellis
> wrote:
>
> > All is not rosy and perfect, "WinUSB" would require an INF file that
> > *points* to the driver - much like the work that Freddy is working
> > towards with a universal libusb inf fi
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> About the flame wars - since you are a developer I see those twice a
> month, along with some people departing the team. What is your great
> contribution to the code? Moving the scripts around in the tree,
> documentation updates, changing a==12;
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:21 +0200, Nico Coesel wrote:
[snip]
> And here is the exact reason why the JTAG vendors are not going to put
> effort into OpenOCD. A marriage works both ways!
The wife wants to cheat on me. What, I'm suppose to just be a cuckold?
> I know I promised to contribute some g
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 19:35 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Monday 22 June 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 19:59 +0200, Dominic wrote:
> > >
> > > Øyvind mentioned the idea of wrapping the JTAG API in TCP/IP. Aside
> > > from performance implications I think this would require
+++ Nico Coesel [2009-06-23 22:21 +0200]:
>I know I promised to contribute some go-along-the-road driver development
>documentation. The task of creating a driver for an FPGA JTAG accellerator
>is on my plate. However at the present I'm not sure if I'm willing to
>contribute any mor
>
> There is the ideal world and the real world.
>> - only 10% use both windows and Linux
>> - about 95% use FTd2xx driver (on windows or linux).
>>
>> Before talking too much about GPL issue ... bla bla bla ... we should
>> ask us some basic questions related to the success of OpenOCD project
> The software is not linked against those libraries, nor does it need
> them to run.
>
> Regards,
> Anders
The same can be done with OpenOCD and FTD2XX.
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.b
Hi Freddie,
you have posted good patches in the past and we are
looking forward to many more.
You're a smart guy. It is my firm belief that you will
see and experience things in the open source
community where you will learn to appreciate the
advantages of GPL. I'm convinced that you will eventua
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto
Learn what this fantastic rule gave us, and stop talking about
"community", because you are talking for a few people (5? 10?), and not
for all of us. Now I see GPL and your attitude towards it, "the
community" and whole OpenOCD vs. FTDI case to be as
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 11:49 +0200, Laurent Gauch wrote:
> >
> > >>/ Øyvind mentioned the idea of wrapping the JTAG API in TCP/IP. Aside
> > />>/ from performance implications I think this would require some
> > />>/ significant development efforts with little immediate benefits. Even
> > />>/ worse
2009/6/23 Rick Altherr :
> FWIW, on the OS X side of the world, libftdi works along with the FTDI VCP
> driver. On my Luminary (...I mean, TI) 6965 demo board, port A is used by
> OpenOCD and port B is a TTY device. I've successfully used this to program
> via a serial bootloader and debug via JT
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Thomas A. Moulton wrote:
>> All is not rosy and perfect, "WinUSB" would require an INF file that
>> *points* to the driver - much like the work that Freddy is working
>> towards with a universal libusb inf file
>>
>
> This is a VERY interesting suggestion.
>
> WunUS
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 15:30 -0400, Duane Ellis wrote:
> All - I believe - I am not sure - that the primary benefit of
> "libft2xxx" is as follows:
>
> (a) It is measurably faster.
>
> That just requires "work" to make it faster.
>
> (b) It works on more platforms, ie: Win7, WinVista, be
AFAIK the current open source FT2232 drivers/libs lack dual-port'ness
support (I would be more than glad if I am mistaken here). Maybe they
will in some future, but I do need to do my job now, and I do with
libft2xx quite successfully.
FWIW, on the OS X side of the world, libftdi works alon
>
> >>/ Øyvind mentioned the idea of wrapping the JTAG API in TCP/IP. Aside
> />>/ from performance implications I think this would require some
> />>/ significant development efforts with little immediate benefits. Even
> />>/ worse, it would encourage other JTAG interface vendors to implement
> /
2009/6/23 Audrius Urmanavičius :
> Also, since I have working build environment for OpenOCD, it makes no
> problem now to build OpenOCD myself, I do not need prebuilt binary. I
> just afraid that OpenOCD would drop libft2xx support altogether to
> settle the dust down.
I hope not. At least 64bit W
2009/6/23 Xiaofan Chen :
> 2009/6/23 Audrius Urmanavičius :
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Duane Ellis wrote:
>>> All - I believe - I am not sure - that the primary benefit of
>>> "libft2xxx" is as follows:
>>>
>>> (a) It is measurably faster.
>>>
>>> That just requires "work" to make it
2009/6/23 Audrius Urmanavičius :
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Duane Ellis wrote:
>> All - I believe - I am not sure - that the primary benefit of
>> "libft2xxx" is as follows:
>>
>> (a) It is measurably faster.
>>
>> That just requires "work" to make it faster.
>>
>> (b) It works on m
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Duane Ellis wrote:
> All - I believe - I am not sure - that the primary benefit of
> "libft2xxx" is as follows:
>
> (a) It is measurably faster.
>
> That just requires "work" to make it faster.
>
> (b) It works on more platforms, ie: Win7, WinVista, because
> Today's OpenOCD handles both services (and more).
> If you split out "Smart JTAG", would OpenOCD be
> the split-out part ... or the target level service?
>
> I'd lean towards the latter.
My motivation for a low level JTAG over TCP/IP is that
it would enable OpenOCD maintainers to run OpenOCD
on
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:37 AM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Sunday 21 June 2009, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> > As an aside, has anyone had the opportunity to try OpenOCD with an
>> > FT2232H-based dongle? I believe high-speed USB should almost eliminate
>> > latency effects due to going from 1 ms-based
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:00 AM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Monday 22 June 2009, Duane Ellis wrote:
>> (d) There is another choice - "WinUSB"
>>
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa476426.aspx
>>
>> As I understand, it is a a multi-(windoze)-platform solution that
>> exposes the USB
On Monday 22 June 2009, Duane Ellis wrote:
> (d) There is another choice - "WinUSB"
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa476426.aspx
>
> As I understand, it is a a multi-(windoze)-platform solution that
> exposes the USB device, functionally in the same manor and style as
> "libus
On Monday 22 June 2009, Harald Kipp wrote:
> We either need a written GPL exception explicitly granted by all
> contributors
As I pointed out when I raised the issue. In fact I even
went and provided a list of 50 developers who would need to
be agreeing to add such an exception.
> or a clear s
On Sunday 21 June 2009, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> > As an aside, has anyone had the opportunity to try OpenOCD with an
> > FT2232H-based dongle? I believe high-speed USB should almost eliminate
> > latency effects due to going from 1 ms-based frames to 125 us-based
> > microframes.
> >
>
> Not sure he
On Monday 22 June 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 19:59 +0200, Dominic wrote:
> >
> > Øyvind mentioned the idea of wrapping the JTAG API in TCP/IP. Aside
> > from performance implications I think this would require some
> > significant development efforts with little immediate benef
On Monday 22 June 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> My favourite is to introduce a serialized protocol for JTAG that
> can work over TCP/IP, pipes, even fn calls...
Such a thing would be useful for a more functional USB
interface to JTAG adapters. Consider some microcontroller
using a (high speed!) US
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Duane Ellis wrote:
> All - I believe - I am not sure - that the primary benefit of
> "libft2xxx" is as follows:
>
> (a) It is measurably faster.
>
> That just requires "work" to make it faster.
>
> (b) It works on more platforms, ie: Win7, WinVista, because d
>> Øyvind mentioned the idea of wrapping the JTAG API in TCP/IP. Aside
>> from performance implications I think this would require some
>> significant development efforts with little immediate benefits. Even
>> worse, it would encourage other JTAG interface vendors to implement
>> their JTAG interf
All - I believe - I am not sure - that the primary benefit of
"libft2xxx" is as follows:
(a) It is measurably faster.
That just requires "work" to make it faster.
(b) It works on more platforms, ie: Win7, WinVista, because drivers
exist for those platforms.
This is tough/hard, nob
> Øyvind mentioned the idea of wrapping the JTAG API in TCP/IP. Aside from
> performance implications I think this would require some significant
> development efforts with little immediate benefits. Even worse, it would
> encourage other JTAG interface vendors to implement their JTAG interface
> l
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 19:59 +0200, Dominic wrote:
> Hi List,
>
>
>
> there has been some speculation about my original intents so I thought
> I might chime in here.
>
>
>
> I'm all in favor of enforcing the GPL where it achieves anything for
> the user. In case of FTD2XX I decided to go the p
Hi List,
there has been some speculation about my original intents so I thought I might
chime in here.
I'm all in favor of enforcing the GPL where it achieves anything for the user.
In case of FTD2XX I decided to go the pragmatic way instead of the idealist's
way.
Why do we want to link again
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 19:19 +0200, Harald Kipp wrote:
> Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Michael
> > Schwingen wrote:
> >> Harald Kipp wrote:
> >>> This is easier to implement than what I suggested: Building an
> >>> intermediate LGPL'ed DLL which links OpenOCD with FTD2XX.
David Brownell wrote:
> On Monday 22 June 2009, Harald Kipp wrote:
>> 1. Someone creates a dummy FTD2XX library, published under LGPL. This
>> library does not contain any FTDI-code, just dummies which contain the
>> same entry names, but always return errors.
>
> This is a transparent attempt to
On Monday 22 June 2009, Harald Kipp wrote:
> 1. Someone creates a dummy FTD2XX library, published under LGPL. This
> library does not contain any FTDI-code, just dummies which contain the
> same entry names, but always return errors.
This is a transparent attempt to circumvent the GPL terms.
Among
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Harald Kipp wrote:
> Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Michael
>> Schwingen wrote:
>>> Harald Kipp wrote:
This is easier to implement than what I suggested: Building an
intermediate LGPL'ed DLL which links OpenOCD with FTD2XX.
>
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Michael
> Schwingen wrote:
>> Harald Kipp wrote:
>>> This is easier to implement than what I suggested: Building an
>>> intermediate LGPL'ed DLL which links OpenOCD with FTD2XX.
>>>
>> I don't see how that solves the GPL problem: as soon as th
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Michael
Schwingen wrote:
> Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>>> As far as I see the situationn, the only clean possibility (except
>>> changing the license) is to have the FTD2XX library in a separate
>>> process, not linked into openocd's address space, which means separating
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> As far as I see the situationn, the only clean possibility (except
>> changing the license) is to have the FTD2XX library in a separate
>> process, not linked into openocd's address space, which means separating
>> the functionality and communicating by sockets or similar me
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Michael
Schwingen wrote:
> Harald Kipp wrote:
>> This is easier to implement than what I suggested: Building an
>> intermediate LGPL'ed DLL which links OpenOCD with FTD2XX.
>>
> I don't see how that solves the GPL problem: as soon as the FTD2XX
> library is linked i
Harald Kipp wrote:
> This is easier to implement than what I suggested: Building an
> intermediate LGPL'ed DLL which links OpenOCD with FTD2XX.
>
I don't see how that solves the GPL problem: as soon as the FTD2XX
library is linked into openocd, it is not OK to distribute - having an
intermedia
Orin Eman wrote:
> All someone need do is produce a DLL that is called FTD2XX and implements
> (or plans to implement) all the interfaces that OpenOCD uses and release it
> under LGPL. The interfaces can all return failure for now. There would be
> no problem whatsoever releasing a binary linked
Duane Ellis wrote:
> We as a group, perhaps may not like this fact, but it is what it is. I
> can not change that original exception, nor can anyone else. It was part
> of the deal when each of us started to contribute to OpenOCD.
Good argument against the repeated phrase "I wouldn't have contr
2009/6/22 Nico Coesel :
> As far as I can understand the problem is that OpenOCD
> cannot be distributed as a Windows binary linked against a
> USB device driver which is non-GPL code. This makes me wonder
> how the executable is to be run on Windows. Somewhere the code
> must be linked against Mic
[Openocd-development] FT2232 & Windows - summary of options
>
> 2009/6/22 Zach Welch :
> > On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 13:20 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> >> On Sunday 21 June 2009, Audrius Urmanavičius wrote:
> >> > I can also second Xiaofan, who offers distribution o
Freddie Chopin wrote:
>
>> You are spreading FUD. Please. Stop. Now.
>>
>
> Why? You - on the other hand - are all "that violates GPL, period", so
> you're spreading "GPL-or-die". Please. Stop. Now. Any realistic solution
> is "violating the GPL" according to you, that's a pure "No, b
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Anders Montonen wrote:
>> libusb-win32's development branch (libusb1) has the WinUSB backend. It
>> is not working yet. It is also not API compatible with libusb 1.0.
>> That is an unfortunate situation.
>
> Is libusb-win32 still being developed? The SVN repository
On Jun 22, 2009, at 8:40, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> You may want to use reply to all. This is not as convenient but it
> is the way
> OpenOCD mailing list is running. Thanks.
That was my intention, but I forgot to change the to-address. Sorry
about that.
> libusb-win32's development branch (libu
2009/6/22 Orin Eman :
> All someone need do is produce a DLL that is called FTD2XX and implements
> (or plans to implement) all the interfaces that OpenOCD uses and release it
> under LGPL. The interfaces can all return failure for now. There would be
> no problem whatsoever releasing a binary l
You may want to use reply to all. This is not as convenient but it is the way
OpenOCD mailing list is running. Thanks.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Anders Montonen wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2009, at 6:15, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 4:02 AM, David Brownell
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> * T
2009/6/21 Zach Welch
> On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 13:20 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > On Sunday 21 June 2009, Audrius Urmanavičius wrote:
> > > I can also second Xiaofan, who offers distribution of .zip file with
> > > Cygwin building environment set up, probably with shell script that
> > > does `
On Sunday 21 June 2009, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> What do you think about this summary?
Ooooh ... *MUCH* better! Thank you!
No comments other than that, for now.
Except for:
> d) Improve libusb-win32, get the driver digital signed to solve the
> 64bit Windows issues. Some HW vendors may be able
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 4:02 AM, David Brownell wrote:
> * The thread about a "Universal" INF file seemed much more
> productive. Sure, more adapters need to be covered, and
> the library binaries that get bundled into the MSI file
> will need to be the right versions (libusb, libftdi).
>
>
On Sunday 21 June 2009, Duane Ellis wrote:
> I would like to see this exception *documented* so that it does not
> expand, or continue beyond this exact situation.
The way to "document" this is with a change to the license,
signed on to by *everyone* holding any copyright on the code.
Any previo
2009/6/22 Zach Welch :
> On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 13:20 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
>> On Sunday 21 June 2009, Audrius Urmanavičius wrote:
>> > I can also second Xiaofan, who offers distribution of .zip file with
>> > Cygwin building environment set up, probably with shell script that
>> > does `./bo
On Sunday 21 June 2009, Magnus Lundin wrote:
> >
> Yes the licence is GPL, and there are no exceptions stated, unfortunatley.
>
> It is definitly possible to add an exception to allow linking to non GPL
> libraries and still remain GPL, but it is not possible to force derived
> GPL works to
On Sunday 21 June 2009, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> > You are spreading FUD. Please. Stop. Now.
>
> Why?
Because it's an annoying and counterproductive waste-of-time.
And because the developers aren't particularly keen on your
encouragment that folk should violate the licensing on the
software t
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 18:33 -0400, Duane Ellis wrote:
> zach> I am afraid that your intent will not matter even one iota, in a
> court of law.
>
> This is not, and was not ever my intent, I am speaking of what I see as
> the original authors "GPL+[undocumented]-exception" intention.
>
> zach> I
Zach Welch wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 17:38 -0400, Duane Ellis wrote:
>
>> zach> Please DO NOT try to cheat the GPL license. You do not understand how
>> zach> far I am willing to take these matters, and I believe any form of
>> binary
>> zach> distribution to be a violation: a DLL wrapper,
zach> I am afraid that your intent will not matter even one iota, in a
court of law.
This is not, and was not ever my intent, I am speaking of what I see as
the original authors "GPL+[undocumented]-exception" intention.
zach> If you want to make exceptions, then they do not apply to the new
co
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 17:38 -0400, Duane Ellis wrote:
> zach> Please DO NOT try to cheat the GPL license. You do not understand how
> zach> far I am willing to take these matters, and I believe any form of
> binary
> zach> distribution to be a violation: a DLL wrapper, a binary patch,
> anything!
Zach Welch pisze:
> If all of OpenOCD's users chipped in, I bet each
> of you would pay less than any commercial alternative.
You forgot something [; I don't need to pay for anything, nor does
anyone else. I can build my own executable with ftd2xx. If you will drop
that support, I'll just stay w
zach> Please DO NOT try to cheat the GPL license. You do not understand how
zach> far I am willing to take these matters, and I believe any form of
binary
zach> distribution to be a violation: a DLL wrapper, a binary patch,
anything!
Let me ask this another way. I believe the question is some wh
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 23:15 +0200, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> Zach Welch pisze:
> > Fix the problems with libusb and libfdti. Period.
>
> This is starting to get ridiculous... As I already wrote somewhere - I
> really would like to, but... I cannot. I'm not a PC programmer, in fact
> I'm a newbie
Zach Welch pisze:
> Fix the problems with libusb and libfdti. Period.
This is starting to get ridiculous... As I already wrote somewhere - I
really would like to, but... I cannot. I'm not a PC programmer, in fact
I'm a newbie in embedded world too, so - sorry, I won't fix libftdi and
libusb, b
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 13:20 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Sunday 21 June 2009, Audrius Urmanavičius wrote:
> > I can also second Xiaofan, who offers distribution of .zip file with
> > Cygwin building environment set up, probably with shell script that
> > does `./bootstrap`, `./configure --with
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 11:28 +0200, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> As no satisfying solution has been decided I will try to summarise the
> options I think are fine for Windows users. Please - put away your
> "linux >> windows" attitude aside for a moment and do keep in mind three
> things before procee
On Sunday 21 June 2009, Audrius Urmanavičius wrote:
> I can also second Xiaofan, who offers distribution of .zip file with
> Cygwin building environment set up, probably with shell script that
> does `./bootstrap`, `./configure --with-ftd2xx-blahblah` and `make`
> there, so that Windows users with
On Sunday 21 June 2009, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> Should we take silence as an agreement?
Of course not. It was posted maybe twelve hours ago, but
you got impatient after only seven.
Plus, there's not really anything to be said except that
both of your "options" violate the licensing.
At this poi
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Michael Fischer wrote:
> Hello List,
>
> No response, no windows user here which need FTD2XX support?
I am Windows user, and I do need FTD2xx support, unless GPL-compatible
alternatives allows dual inteface (I use Olimex ARM-USB-OCD and I
appreciate it having seri
On Sunday 21 June 2009, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> Maybe you can create a new poll there for the FTD2XX support.
> I think the Windows users will need the FTD2XX support. It is
> not that easy to get OpenOCD+libusb-win32+libftdi working under
> Windows after all.
To repeat: anyone wanting D2XX support
On Jun 21, 2009, at 9:30 AM, Freddie Chopin
wrote:
> Should we take silence as an agreement?
>
Of course not.
> That's pretty interesting - so many posts about such insignificant
> cases
> like whitespaces or type-names, so little posts about such significant
> case as ftd2xx...
>
Person
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> Should we take silence as an agreement?
No. (Wasn't this summary posted yesterday?)
This debate is still alive, give the community
time to consider the options and come up with ideas.
I haven't followed this debate terribly closely, I'm ju
Should we take silence as an agreement?
That's pretty interesting - so many posts about such insignificant cases
like whitespaces or type-names, so little posts about such significant
case as ftd2xx...
4\/3!!
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Open
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> So in reality I see only two solutions:
>
> 1. A ftd2xx.dll wrapper library, which would be published under GPL with
> exception for ftd2xx.dll. Such library would dynamically link ftd2xx and
> - as an open-source solution - could be linked w
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Michael Fischer wrote:
> Hello List,
>
> No response, no windows user here which need FTD2XX support?
>
I saw you have a poll here. So far 100% users (2 out of 2) are Windows
users. The samples may be too small now. But I believe there are
more Windows users than o
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 15:00 +0200, Michael Fischer wrote:
> Hello List,
>
> No response, no windows user here which need FTD2XX support?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael
Well 2 points come to mind...
1 - as pointed out before, most of us windows users are interested in
plug and play
2 - this is a
Hello List,
No response, no windows user here which need FTD2XX support?
Best regards,
Michael
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
As no satisfying solution has been decided I will try to summarise the
options I think are fine for Windows users. Please - put away your
"linux >> windows" attitude aside for a moment and do keep in mind three
things before proceeding:
1. Windows users usually have no knowledgle of linux and l
92 matches
Mail list logo
