On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 17:01 +0200, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> Zach Welch pisze:
> > Technically, I agree. Politically, I think it better to find a solution
> > for binary distribution. That said, the technical argument probably
> > deserves to win. Others need to provide feedback; I will not dictat
Rob Barris wrote:
> I have a few questions which I would like each regular contributor to
> assess, if you can spare a few moments:
>
> a) is Rick's last sentence above one that you agree or disagree with ?
>
I agree technically. A release can be made in the current state, and I
could live wit
Zach Welch pisze:
> Technically, I agree. Politically, I think it better to find a solution
> for binary distribution. That said, the technical argument probably
> deserves to win. Others need to provide feedback; I will not dictate
> our release goals, but I will help lead us to them.
As Engli
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 01:09 -0700, Rob Barris wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:53 PM, Rick Altherr wrote:
>
> > Technically, nothing is required from the project-side. The
> > infringement happens solely at the time of distribution, not at the
> > time of authoring or compilation. Since OpenOCD is
On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:53 PM, Rick Altherr wrote:
> Technically, nothing is required from the project-side. The
> infringement happens solely at the time of distribution, not at the
> time of authoring or compilation. Since OpenOCD is only released as
> source code, the project is not directly a
Zach Welch a écrit :
> Personally, I want to be done with talking about these matters and start
> to move on to fix the problems for the community. Sound good?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Zach
>
>
Agreed!
--
Tired of Microsoft's rebootive multitasking?
then it's time to upgrade to Linux.
http://home.comc
David Brownell wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Dominic wrote:
>
>> Being the one who followed the project from
>> its very beginning I believe I do know some things that others may have
>> missed
>> or never heard about.
>>
>
> So maybe you can answer this ... What does the "arp
Dominic,
Since this followed your very constructive and friendly reply to my
summary of the options and willingness to swear off profits, I have
tried to interpret your response herein in the best possible light.
Likewise, I hope you will grant me the same consideration, just in case
it is needed.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:30 PM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Dominic wrote:
>> Being the one who followed the project from
>> its very beginning I believe I do know some things that others may have
>> missed
>> or never heard about.
>
> So maybe you can answer this ..
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Dominic wrote:
> Being the one who followed the project from
> its very beginning I believe I do know some things that others may have
> missed
> or never heard about.
So maybe you can answer this ... What does the "arp_" prefix in
various commands represent?
"
On Wednesday 24 June 2009 19:04:37 Zach Welch wrote:
> Are you any of those things, today? Is he contributing, today?
>
> > Please respect MR. Dominic Rath. He is the CREATOR of OpenOCD 2004 (with
> > 1-2 years or more of intensive coding)
>
> I do want to be clear that I do value and respect his
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 14:27 +0200, Laurent Gauch wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 12:20 +0200, Dominic Rath wrote:
> > >/ This goes inentionally to you alone, feel free to bring it up on the
> > >list if you want...
> > />/
> > />/ > You have made me start to wonder if it would be possible to
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 14:08 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Hi Dominic,
>
> first of all: there is every evidence that the technical problems
> that USB are encountering these days will be resolved *LONG*
> before any change in license could be effecuated.
>
> I even believe that USB problems will
>
> On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 12:20 +0200, Dominic Rath wrote:
> >/ This goes inentionally to you alone, feel free to bring it up on the list
> >if you want...
> />/
> />/ > You have made me start to wonder if it would be possible to bring some
> />/ > sort of claim of "misrepresentation" against the
Hi Dominic,
first of all: there is every evidence that the technical problems
that USB are encountering these days will be resolved *LONG*
before any change in license could be effecuated.
I even believe that USB problems will be fixed before the community will have
finished debating the ramifica
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 12:20 +0200, Dominic Rath wrote:
> This goes inentionally to you alone, feel free to bring it up on the list if
> you want...
>
> > You have made me start to wonder if it would be possible to bring some
> > sort of claim of "misrepresentation" against the project authors, we
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 10:52 +0200, Nico Coesel wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Zach Welch [mailto:z...@superlucidity.net]
> > Sent: woensdag 24 juni 2009 10:27
> > To: Nico Coesel
> > Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
> > Subjec
> -Original Message-
> From: Zach Welch [mailto:z...@superlucidity.net]
> Sent: woensdag 24 juni 2009 10:27
> To: Nico Coesel
> Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
> Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License
>
> On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 09:46
: Rick Altherr
> > Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
> > Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License
> >
> > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 15:45 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote:
> > >
> > > impact your mortgage or ability to make a living is false. You just
> -Original Message-
> From: openocd-development-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:openocd-
> development-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Zach Welch
> Sent: woensdag 24 juni 2009 1:10
> To: Rick Altherr
> Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
> Subject: Re:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 18:39 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote:
>
> On Jun 23, 2009, at 5:53 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 17:07 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote:
> >>> But since you bring it up, sunk costs actually more relate to
> >>> costs of
> >>> abandoning work that should have been p
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Rick Altherr wrote:
> Technically, nothing is required from the project-side. The
> infringement happens solely at the time of distribution, not at the
> time of authoring or compilation. Since OpenOCD is only released as
> source code, the project is not directly a
On Jun 23, 2009, at 5:53 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 17:07 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote:
But since you bring it up, sunk costs actually more relate to
costs of
abandoning work that should have been profitable, because conditions
change that prevent the profit from being realize
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 17:07 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote:
> > But since you bring it up, sunk costs actually more relate to costs of
> > abandoning work that should have been profitable, because conditions
> > change that prevent the profit from being realized (or bigger profits
> > becoming available
But since you bring it up, sunk costs actually more relate to costs of
abandoning work that should have been profitable, because conditions
change that prevent the profit from being realized (or bigger profits
becoming available through other means). Thus, my costs here will be
sunk if and only
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Magnus Lundin wrote:
> > Though for the record ... the "bitbang" protocol
> > for FT232 (not FT2232) is neither well-known nor open.
> >
> > If that were open, it would be possible to implement
> > JTAG on other FTDI chips. Less efficiently, to be
> > sure, but with easier
David Brownell a écrit :
> On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Thomas A. Moulton wrote:
>
>> Lets keep it civil here.
>>
>
> But Tom ... with a name like "Photo Leecher",
> how could you expect that person to be anything
> other than a leech on *any* community? :)
>
>
> I hate to say it but a troll c
TDI2xx.
> Amount of information: 0
>
>
>
>
> __
> From: Thomas A. Moulton
> To: Photo Leecher
> Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 June, 2009 0:24:09
> Subject: Re: [O
grade and stop using the
old versions (assuming the replacement is available).
From: David Brownell
To: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
Cc: Photo Leecher
Sent: Wednesday, 24 June, 2009 0:22:54
Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tuesday 23 June
-development] License
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:59 +, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Your copy would have the exception because you got revision X.
> Revision X+1 would not, and therefore you wouldn't be able to
> distribute FTDI2XX any longer as part of >= X+1.
>
> People who wa
David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Magnus Lundin wrote:
>
>> The protocol to talk to MPSSE is well known/open (they do praise
>> developers of open alternatives on thier web site) ,
>>
>
> Though for the record ... the "bitbang" protocol
> for FT232 (not FT2232) is neither we
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:59 +, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Your copy would have the exception because you got revision X.
> Revision X+1 would not, and therefore you wouldn't be able to
> distribute FTDI2XX any longer as part of >= X+1.
>
> People who want to keep revision X 5 years later can do s
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Where does it say that you cannot revoke an exception
> in a new version/revision?
It doesn't... It's the same issue as any re-licensing.
You can do it given agreement among all copyright holders.
And it won't invalidate older source snapshots,
wi
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> > We all want openocd to be open - I just do not see why adding
> > an exception to ftd2xx is opening any floodgates for other vendors.
>
> I have not seen a specific proposal for new license so I can't
> really comment.
That's a good point. Likewi
Thomas A. Moulton a écrit :
> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:02 +, Photo Leecher wrote:
>
>> The exception could be allowed now and then removed later once the
>> supposed new solutions are done and working.
>>
>>
> A Real exception once added can not be removed.
>
> tom
>
Agreed!
Also, I
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Magnus Lundin wrote:
> The protocol to talk to MPSSE is well known/open (they do praise
> developers of open alternatives on thier web site) ,
Though for the record ... the "bitbang" protocol
for FT232 (not FT2232) is neither well-known nor open.
If that were open, it wo
Tell me where I have made any demands???
Nice fail, Herr TROLL.
From: Michael Schwingen
To: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 23:44:15
Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License
Photo Leecher wrote:
> Isn't it great
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Thomas A. Moulton wrote:
> Lets keep it civil here.
But Tom ... with a name like "Photo Leecher",
how could you expect that person to be anything
other than a leech on *any* community? :)
I hate to say it but a troll community seems
to have grown on this ist.
__
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 00:44 +0200, Michael Schwingen wrote:
> Photo Leecher wrote:
> > Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent
> > in sales of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware?
> > Gotta love the impartiality here...
> > The exception could be allowed now and then
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 15:45 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote:
>
> On Jun 23, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 21:57 +0100, Spencer Oliver wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> GPL is important, but i do not understand people's objections to
> >> adding an
> >> exception -
> >>>
Photo Leecher wrote:
> Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent
> in sales of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware?
> Gotta love the impartiality here...
> The exception could be allowed now and then removed later once the
> supposed new solutions are done and working
est code.
From: Thomas A. Moulton
To: Photo Leecher
Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 23:54:55
Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:37 +, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Oh really?
> So one can no
om: Magnus Lundin
To: Photo Leecher
Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 23:52:02
Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License
Photo Leecher wrote:
> Where does it say that you cannot revoke an exception in a new
> version/revision?
> That doesn't make
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:37 +, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Oh really?
> So one can no longer remove code that uses FTDI2xx in a newer
> revision/version and remove it from the license?
> You should get yourself a lawyer... That will be the day when one is
> not allowed to DELETE CODE.
>
> Oh dear.
Photo Leecher wrote:
> Where does it say that you cannot revoke an exception in a new
> version/revision?
> That doesn't make sense???
>
Sure
But it only applies to new code since last release when other rights
were granted.
This is NOT a GPL problem, it applies anytime you give somebody a time
guage is so confusing and abstract.
From: Magnus Lundin
To: Photo Leecher
Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 23:41:56
Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License
Photo Leecher wrote:
> Oh really?
> So one can no longer
On Jun 23, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 21:57 +0100, Spencer Oliver wrote:
[snip]
GPL is important, but i do not understand people's objections to
adding an
exception -
who exactly is this hurting?
Would you like to kick me in the nuts, while saying thing
Photo Leecher wrote:
> Oh really?
> So one can no longer remove code that uses FTDI2xx in a newer
> revision/version and remove it from the license?
> You should get yourself a lawyer... That will be the day when one is
> not allowed to DELETE CODE.
>
Cool it crazy wont build support.
The
: Photo Leecher
Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 23:35:26
Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:02 +, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent
> in sales of your ove
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:02 +, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent
> in sales of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware?
> Gotta love the impartiality here...
>
> The exception could be allowed now and then removed later once the
> suppose
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:10 +, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Guess what, OpenOCD wasn't started so YOU can get paid.
> If you don't like the way OpenOCD is managed, get out.
>
> You're quite an asswipe.
>
>
Lets keep it civil here.
In GPL Free means freedom, not no costs ever.
You can develop y
009 23:22:16
Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:10 +, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Guess what, OpenOCD wasn't started so YOU can get paid.
I do not expect any work to come my way from this.
> If you don't like the way OpenOCD is managed, get ou
the stuff.
From: Zach Welch
To: Photo Leecher
Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 23:21:05
Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:02 +, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Isn't it great that you are
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:10 +, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Guess what, OpenOCD wasn't started so YOU can get paid.
I do not expect any work to come my way from this.
> If you don't like the way OpenOCD is managed, get out.
Ditto. Oh, wait... who has been helping manage things here?
Go away. St
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:02 +, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent
> in sales of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware?
> Gotta love the impartiality here...
Screw impartiality. If this should be a meritocracy, then Øyvind has
contribute
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 23:52 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 23:37 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> >> > You will need to get confirmation from other contributors, as I think
> >> > the actual revision might be far lower than a
2009/6/24 Spencer Oliver :
>
>> > What is the situation with the ZY1000, I assume that all
>> modifications
>> > to the OpenOCD source tree are public, but can you
>> guarantee that the
>> > code running on the Zylin1000 does not link to anything that is
>> > nonopen and thus violates the GPL ?
>>
2009/6/24 Magnus Lundin :
> Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Magnus Lundin wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ųyvind Harboe wrote:
>>>
Could you explain a bit about your thoughts on closed source
target and interface drivers together with OpenOCD?
I can imagine t
> > What is the situation with the ZY1000, I assume that all
> modifications
> > to the OpenOCD source tree are public, but can you
> guarantee that the
> > code running on the Zylin1000 does not link to anything that is
> > nonopen and thus violates the GPL ?
>
> zy1000 runs eCos which is G
pment@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 23:11:14
Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent in
> sales of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware?
What do you b
> We all want openocd to be open - I just do not see why adding
> an exception to ftd2xx is opening any floodgates for other vendors.
I have not seen a specific proposal for new license so I can't
really comment.
Do you want to list ftd2xx specifically when there are technical
solutions to that s
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent in
> sales of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware?
What do you believe is a fair price for a zy1000 like product?
> Gotta love the impartiality here...
> The exception c
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Magnus Lundin wrote:
>
>> Ųyvind Harboe wrote:
>>
>>> Could you explain a bit about your thoughts on closed source
>>> target and interface drivers together with OpenOCD?
>>>
>>> I can imagine that a lot of CPU vendors would love the
3:05:43
Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 21:57 +0100, Spencer Oliver wrote:
[snip]
> GPL is important, but i do not understand people's objections to adding an
> exception -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&
>
> Against currently.
>
> The current technical problems are just a tiny bump in the
> road compared to the >2000 revisions we have in SVN.
>
> We need a robust license(GPL is that) and we need to make
> sure that all the things we want open stay open. Who's to say
> what the effects of an
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 21:57 +0100, Spencer Oliver wrote:
[snip]
> GPL is important, but i do not understand people's objections to adding an
> exception -
>>
> who exactly is this hurting?
>>
Would you like to kick me in the nuts, while sayi
rking.
From: Øyvind Harboe
To: Zach Welch
Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 22:52:53
Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 23:37 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> &
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Magnus Lundin wrote:
> Ųyvind Harboe wrote:
>>
>> Could you explain a bit about your thoughts on closed source
>> target and interface drivers together with OpenOCD?
>>
>> I can imagine that a lot of CPU vendors would love the ability
>> to provide a closed source
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 23:37 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> > You will need to get confirmation from other contributors, as I think
>> > the actual revision might be far lower than anyone realizes presently.
>>
>> I started my contributions at sv
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 23:37 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> > You will need to get confirmation from other contributors, as I think
> > the actual revision might be far lower than anyone realizes presently.
>
> I started my contributions at svn 214 (or earlier, not easy to see
> from a cursory look
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Could you explain a bit about your thoughts on closed source
> target and interface drivers together with OpenOCD?
>
> I can imagine that a lot of CPU vendors would love the ability
> to provide a closed source plugin that talks to their CPU.
>
> Similarly I believe that ther
> You will need to get confirmation from other contributors, as I think
> the actual revision might be far lower than anyone realizes presently.
I started my contributions at svn 214 (or earlier, not easy to see
from a cursory look at the logs).
--
Øyvind Harboe
Embedded software and hardware
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:16 +0200, Dominic wrote:
> Dear List,
>
>
>
> 1) I wont support any action against someone who distributes OpenOCD
> binaries
> linked against FTD2XX as long as there's no viable alternative. When I
> wrote
> the OpenOCD the liberties of potential users were paramount,
Could you explain a bit about your thoughts on closed source
target and interface drivers together with OpenOCD?
I can imagine that a lot of CPU vendors would love the ability
to provide a closed source plugin that talks to their CPU.
Similarly I believe that there are hardware debuggers that
wou
Dominic,
I agree with your comments, and feel it is a shame this whole situation has
occurred.
> 2) The OpenOCD project itself released binaries linked
> against FTD2XX on its Berlios page, for example
> openocd-cygwin-ftd2xx-20060213.tar.gz. I don't think it's
> totally unreasonable to extrap
Dear List,
1) I wont support any action against someone who distributes OpenOCD binaries
linked against FTD2XX as long as there's no viable alternative. When I wrote
the OpenOCD the liberties of potential users were paramount, and this hasn't
changed. There is no viable alternative to FTD2XX on
76 matches
Mail list logo
