"De Cesaris, Ivan" wrote: > >Hi All, >jumping on the topic of "the future of OpenOCD", one thing I'd like the core >group to consider is the license. > >Maybe this is not obvious to everyone but the code, being GPL, precludes some >usages. >I'm not a lawyer but I can't release internal developed code for new silicon >to any external customer (i.e. not in my company), because an NDAs can't >"override" GPL licensing. >Something like a BSD license would work great in this kind of scenario, >otherwise whatever external customer needs to wait for the debugging >capabilities to be publicly disclosed before we can ship any OpenOCD.
The other logical possibility is for your company to change its policy requiring NDAs. Please understand that I don't intend that as a glib or negative comment, but just to suggest that there may be other ways of approaching the problem. Prompt, freely available debugging information could even be actively promoted as a potentially sales-enhancing feature. Like you, I'm an engineer and not a lawyer. Also like you, I have worked for large corporations and understand that changing policy is often time-consuming and difficult. Still, perhaps it's worth a try? Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y _______________________________________________ OpenOCD-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openocd-devel
