get lost over the years
because nobody actively maintains/tests it as it's not an official
feature.
gr.
Ronald
Original Message
Subject: [Openocd-development] OpenOCD license
From: Raúl Sánchez Siles
To: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
Date: Wed Jun 24 2009 16:55:32 GMT+0200
Hello:
I'll just participate in this horrible flame once.
On Wednesday 24 June 2009 14:02:26 Ronald Vanschoren wrote:
> >it sucks to have to be the one to push for license
> >compliance like this
>
> Then don't! I'm just a user of OpenOCD so you have all right to ignore what
> I'm saying as
dation
or whatever, so these discussions are a thing of the past. I don't want to run
a 2nd application to be able to use FTD2xx on windows. I already have to run
OpenOCD and gdb, more then enough to keep track off.
gr.
Ronald
Original Message
Subject: [Openocd-deve
Hi all,
In the face of Rick's abrupt departure, I feel that I need to provide
more status and summary of the licensing situation.
Each copyright holder has the right to "dictate" whether or not they
will allow license terms to be changed in their derived works. That is
immutable, and I do not fe
Freddie Chopin wrote:
> Kees Jongenburger pisze:
>
>> 99% of the open-source people are happy they are liberated
>> from the need to use warez craks and other stuff.
>>
>
> Liberated to a prison of GPL... That's a dream-liberty indeed, as you
> see in this discussion.
>
For you.
I have
Freddie Chopin wrote:
> whole GPL situation here looks to me like:
>
> - Don't do this!
> - Why?
> - Just because I say so!
>
> You cannot buy drugs but you can produce them at home for your personal
> use? I don't think so... Forged money? Guns? Nuclear weapons?
Legal rules are not based on lo
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> Kees Jongenburger pisze:
>> 99% of the open-source people are happy they are liberated
>> from the need to use warez craks and other stuff.
>
> Liberated to a prison of GPL... That's a dream-liberty indeed, as you
> see in this discussion.
Kees Jongenburger pisze:
> 99% of the open-source people are happy they are liberated
> from the need to use warez craks and other stuff.
Liberated to a prison of GPL... That's a dream-liberty indeed, as you
see in this discussion.
4\/3!!
___
Openocd-
> And another thing - do you really believe, that no-one will create such
> binary and distribute that somehow (torrent, rapidshare, forum or
> whatever)? 99% of ppl don't care about GPL...
99% of the open-source people are happy they are liberated
from the need to use warez craks and other stuff.
Some more questions: What's the difference between distributing a binary
with ftd2xx.dll and allowing user to create such binary by himself? This
whole GPL situation here looks to me like:
- Don't do this!
- Why?
- Just because I say so!
You cannot buy drugs but you can produce them at home for
Hello! :-)
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:08 PM,
wrote:
> Under Linux, I am not so sure. Anyway, libftdi and libusb both
> work under Linux, so there is no real need to use libftd2xx
> under Linux now that Nicolas says that there is no real performance
> gain to use libftd2xx under Linux.
Libftdi is
On Monday 15 June 2009 20:55:00 Freddie Chopin wrote:
> Michael Schwingen pisze:
> > those poor windows-only users
>
> I think that majority of OpenOCD users are on Windows... Yes, they are
> not as l33t as the Linux users, but still...
>
> http://developer.berlios.de/project/showfiles.php?group_id
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Orin Eman wrote:
> Has anyone actually run the libusb-win32 driver through the WHQL tests?
> IME, it takes a machine half a day per OS variant to run them on a driver
> that essentially does nothing as far as the tests are concerned. The money
> you pay MS is insi
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:39 AM, David Brownell
> wrote:
> >> On Monday 15 June 2009, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> >>> As I read, if libusb-win32's WinUSB backend is working, then you can
> >
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:39 AM, David Brownell wrote:
>> On Monday 15 June 2009, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>>> As I read, if libusb-win32's WinUSB backend is working, then you can
>>> use WinUSB as the driver and install it under Vista 64. There wil
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:39 AM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Monday 15 June 2009, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> As I read, if libusb-win32's WinUSB backend is working, then you can
>> use WinUSB as the driver and install it under Vista 64. There will be
>> a warning but you can install it even if the VID/P
On Monday 15 June 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
> > The issue is simply whether someone *DISTRIBUTING* binaries is
> > allowed to rely on that library. And permission for that has
> > never been granted, through the license, by any contributor.
>
> This position is of course a bit strong. I doub
On Monday 15 June 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
>
> > I think I'll re-spin that patch to point out that the performance
> > difference is marginal, which seems to reflect *current* reports
> > (vs a-few-years-old, or perhaps bitbang mode not mpssse).
>
> I just committed it, but further patches are wel
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 17:37 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Monday 15 June 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> > Others have pointed out that this licensing violation occurs only when
> > distributing the binaries, so I do want to provide assurance that I have
> > no problem supporting these types of featu
On Monday 15 June 2009, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> As I read, if libusb-win32's WinUSB backend is working, then you can
> use WinUSB as the driver and install it under Vista 64. There will be
> a warning but you can install it even if the VID/PID combination has
> not go through the WHQL process.
Shoul
On Monday 15 June 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> Others have pointed out that this licensing violation occurs only when
> distributing the binaries, so I do want to provide assurance that I have
> no problem supporting these types of features -- for developers to use
> in local builds _only_. I think s
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> Nicolas,
>
> I figured a simple NACK would not suffice, given the range of topics
> this thread has covered. This is not all meant for you, as I expect you
> have heard these arguments once or twice in the past. :) I just wanted
> to post to this thread
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Orin Eman wrote:
> Unfortunately, you need an inf file to associate the winusb driver with your
> device's vid/pid and that too needs signing. In theory, there is a special
> WHQL submission for this, "Driver Update Acceptable" where you don't have to
> run throu
Nicolas,
I figured a simple NACK would not suffice, given the range of topics
this thread has covered. This is not all meant for you, as I expect you
have heard these arguments once or twice in the past. :) I just wanted
to post to this thread once (and for all).
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 00:28 -04
Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> That's the problem, because OpenOCD compiled with --enable-ft2232_ftd2xx
>> won't start if there is no ftd2xx.dll library somewhere. This solution is not
>> good, because when one downloads a complete package, one expects it to "just
>> work". PPL who use wiggler and have no
Freddie Chopin wrote:
> Michael Schwingen pisze:
>
>> those poor windows-only users
>>
>
> I think that majority of OpenOCD users are on Windows... Yes, they are
> not as l33t as the Linux users, but still...
>
I am not talking about "l33t" (whatever that may be) - only about the
extra
R.Doss wrote:
> The lack has existed from the first version and all later code inherit
> this fault.
> The first code come from Dominic Rath. Is this right? The best way is to
> ask Dominic, what he prefer.
>
> Way one: change in licence
>
>
> Way two: The distribution with D2XX library ist illegal
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> Orin Eman pisze:
> > __try
> >
> > __except
> >
>
> This probably won't solve the case, as OpenOCD is written in C, not C++,
> and there are no exceptions in C...
>
Actually, __try ... __except (structured Exception Handling or SEH) aren't
Orin Eman pisze:
> __try
>
> __except
>
This probably won't solve the case, as OpenOCD is written in C, not C++,
and there are no exceptions in C...
4\/3!!
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlio
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Freddie Chopin wrote:
>
> > Nicolas Pitre pisze:
> > > If libftd2xx is not statically
> > > linked, or even not distributed along with the compiled OpenOCD
binary, then
> > > the case against it is highly arguable and f
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> Nicolas Pitre pisze:
> > If libftd2xx is not statically
> > linked, or even not distributed along with the compiled OpenOCD binary, then
> > the case against it is highly arguable and far from being a black and white
> > picture but rather a large gray
>From the point of performance I think we can switch.
The other problem is the installed ftd2xx base. I think
it makes a problem to install a libftdi driver over an
existing ftd2xx driver. Before the user can use a new
windows version of OpenOCD based on libftdi, they must
deinstall the ftd2xx driv
Hello List again,
it looks that the system has choke on somthing from
the last mail. Therefore, second try.
Some notes on the libftdi version and performance.
I have tested the r2240 with libftdi an could
achive about 140KB/sec.
Unfortunately I could not test the fd2xx with r2240,
here it looks
Hello List,
some notes on the libftdi version and performance.
I have tested the r2240 with libftdi an could
achive about 140KB/sec.
Unfortunately I could not test the fd2xx with r2240,
here it looks that it is broken.
But the r1888 with ftd2xx looks like the same performance,
here about 140K
Nicolas Pitre pisze:
> If libftd2xx is not statically
> linked, or even not distributed along with the compiled OpenOCD binary,
> then the case against it is highly arguable and far from being a black
> and white picture but rather a large gray spot.
That's the problem, because OpenOCD compiled
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:59 AM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Monday 15 June 2009, Orin Eman wrote:
> > Note that the WHQL certified FTDI drivers are available on Windows Update
> -
> > which can be seen as an extension of the set of drivers that come "in the
> > box".
> >
> > Now you can argue whe
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, David Brownell wrote:
> No, it's extremely easily defensible. They saw the license was
> GNU GPLv2, and they knew just what that means. It's hardly news
> to anyone ever looks at licenses. There would be no "retroactive
> revocation" going on, to just acknowledge reality by
Alain Mouette schrieb:
>
> R.Doss escreveu:
>> I have the same attitude like Freddie. Now it is a bug in the licence,
>> this is to correct!
>
> +1 I vote with him :)
>
> > Now... who can make that call? Is there someone with code in OpenOCD
> > who is against such a relicensing?
>
> Now, this can
On Monday 15 June 2009, Orin Eman wrote:
> Note that the WHQL certified FTDI drivers are available on Windows Update -
> which can be seen as an extension of the set of drivers that come "in the
> box".
>
> Now you can argue whether "Windows Update" is part of the normal
> distribution mechanism f
Michael Schwingen pisze:
> those poor windows-only users
I think that majority of OpenOCD users are on Windows... Yes, they are
not as l33t as the Linux users, but still...
http://developer.berlios.de/project/showfiles.php?group_id=4148
6700 d/l of the windows version, add 250 d/l from my webpa
On Monday 15 June 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> However, considering that the oldest version of OpenOCD as published by
> Dominic Rath, the initial author, did contain support for ftd2xx
> already, it would be hard to dispute the fact that this wasn't the
> initial author's intention to allow thi
Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> However, considering that the oldest version of OpenOCD as published by
> Dominic Rath, the initial author, did contain support for ftd2xx
> already, it would be hard to dispute the fact that this wasn't the
> initial author's intention to allow this usage. And subsequent
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Orin Eman wrote:
> > FWIW, to load on 64bit Windows versions, a driver _does not_ need to go
> > through the WHQL process. It does however, need to be signed by someone
> the
> > OS trusts* and you _will_ g
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, David Brownell wrote:
>
> > On Monday 15 June 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, David Brownell wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sunday 14 June 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > > Now... who can make that call
Nicolas Pitre pisze:
> Yet, it must be noted that libftd2xx is dynamically linked on Linux.
> If the Windows version is also a DLL then it is arguable whether or not
> they are already linked when the OpenOCD binary is distributed.
> Currently the library must be available for openocd to execu
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, David Brownell wrote:
> On Monday 15 June 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, David Brownell wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday 14 June 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > Now... who can make that call? Is there someone with code in OpenOCD
> > > > who is against such
On Monday 15 June 2009, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> >> Yet, it must be noted that libftd2xx is dynamically linked on Linux.
> >> If the Windows version is also a DLL then it is arguable whether or not
> >> they are already linked when the OpenOCD binary is distributed.
> >
> > One might argue that, yes.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:49 PM, David Brownell wrote:
>> Yet, it must be noted that libftd2xx is dynamically linked on Linux.
>> If the Windows version is also a DLL then it is arguable whether or not
>> they are already linked when the OpenOCD binary is distributed.
>
> One might argue that, yes.
On Monday 15 June 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, David Brownell wrote:
>
> > On Sunday 14 June 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > Now... who can make that call? Is there someone with code in OpenOCD
> > > who is against such a relicensing?
> >
> > Not the right process. Every O
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, David Brownell wrote:
> On Sunday 14 June 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > Now... who can make that call? Is there someone with code in OpenOCD
> > who is against such a relicensing?
>
> Not the right process. Every OpenOCD copyright holder must explicitly
> agree. Lack-of-N
On Sunday 14 June 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> So it is perfectly fine for those who holds the copyright on OpenOCD to
> amend those rules they chose for it. But it better be done explicitly
> (like, in written at the top of the COPYING file and in the
> documentation)
And in *every* file's he
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Orin Eman wrote:
> FWIW, to load on 64bit Windows versions, a driver _does not_ need to go
> through the WHQL process. It does however, need to be signed by someone the
> OS trusts* and you _will_ get the message asking whether you trust the
> manufacturer when yo
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> (sorry for sending to David only in the first try, this "Reply-To"
> policy is really strange, and the "reasons" just don't convince me...)
>
> In my country such imaginary problems are often described as "a shot in
> one's own foot".
>
> If OpenOCD
This is a restriction by ownselves. Distributions exist with this
violating. It is not nice to bring these distributions in a bad light.
All have the aim to make openocd popular.
The code exists and works fine. Nobody troubled until somebody found
this problem.
It is necessary to make an addition
On Sunday 14 June 2009, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> If OpenOCD aims to be uber-GPLv3-h4x0r-friendly that's perfectly fine,
The issue has *nothing* to do with being l33t.
> but I just can't imagine majority of vista64 users building their own
> copy of OpenOCD.
I won't disagree. So the fix is gett
(sorry for sending to David only in the first try, this "Reply-To"
policy is really strange, and the "reasons" just don't convince me...)
In my country such imaginary problems are often described as "a shot in
one's own foot".
If OpenOCD aims to be uber-GPLv3-h4x0r-friendly that's perfectly fine
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
> >> I do not use FTDI based Jtag tools. But I think libftdi is based on
> libusb.
> >> So it will not work under Vista 64 bit (and the upcoming Windows 7
> 64bit)
> >> since libusb-win
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> I do not use FTDI based Jtag tools. But I think libftdi is based on libusb.
>> So it will not work under Vista 64 bit (and the upcoming Windows 7 64bit)
>> since libusb-win32 does not work under Vista 64.
>
> I presume this will get fixed e
On Saturday 13 June 2009, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> I do not use FTDI based Jtag tools. But I think libftdi is based on libusb.
> So it will not work under Vista 64 bit (and the upcoming Windows 7 64bit)
> since libusb-win32 does not work under Vista 64.
Which means that anyone wanting OpenOCD on a 64
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > Furthermore, my own testing with both libraries showed libftd2xx
> > marginally faster, and not many times faster as the doc is claiming.
> >
> > OTOH, libftdi is already packaged by most distribut
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> Furthermore, my own testing with both libraries showed libftd2xx
> marginally faster, and not many times faster as the doc is claiming.
>
> OTOH, libftdi is already packaged by most distributions. On Fedora you
> only need to do "yum install
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, David Brownell wrote:
> It's my understanding that verions of OpenOCD built using
> the "libftd2xx" library (FTDI's binary code) can not be
> redistributed without violating the OpenOCD license (GPL).
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLib
It's my understanding that verions of OpenOCD built using
the "libftd2xx" library (FTDI's binary code) can not be
redistributed without violating the OpenOCD license (GPL).
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
Reason: the libftd2xx code clearly isn't a "system
Dean Glazeski pisze:
> Have you gotten anywhere with the packaging?
I'm creating a final script for Wix3 right now, probably later today
I'll put it somewhere and send a link on the list for testing.
> I've made an NSIS script if you would like to see it.
I'm interested what have you put in the
Hi Dean,
2009/1/24 Dean Glazeski :
sic
> Have you gotten anywhere with the packaging? I've made an NSIS
> script if you would like to see it. I've also created an icon and have
> been trying to get it to be associated with the final Windows
> executable. I don't mean to just take over, but I'm
Freddie,
I've just been messing around with the packaging so I can be some what
useful to you. Like I said, I like playing with stuff, so I'm playing
;). Have you gotten anywhere with the packaging? I've made an NSIS
script if you would like to see it. I've also created an icon and have
be
Ah, there it is. Thank you.
// Dean
Rick Altherr wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Dean Glazeski wrote:
>
>> Is there a definitive license for OpenOCD? I realize it is GPL, but I
>> haven't found any license files in the source or located on the OpenOCD
>> site. Can any one point me to
"Dean Glazeski" napisał(a):
> By the way, thanks to those who responded to my question about building
> OpenOCD for Windows. Getting libusb did the trick! I may add the build
> steps to the docs at some point when I'm done playing with installers.
i'm not sure who's supposed to do the 0.1
On Jan 24, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Dean Glazeski wrote:
Is there a definitive license for OpenOCD? I realize it is GPL, but I
haven't found any license files in the source or located on the
OpenOCD
site. Can any one point me to the actual license? Your help is much
appreciated.
By the way, th
Is there a definitive license for OpenOCD? I realize it is GPL, but I
haven't found any license files in the source or located on the OpenOCD
site. Can any one point me to the actual license? Your help is much
appreciated.
By the way, thanks to those who responded to my question about build
70 matches
Mail list logo
