Thanks guys for the feedback. As I wrote the license question has implications, I see everyone got the negative ones though, let me elaborate a bit on the other aspect which might not be clear or familiar to everyone.
It's normal, in the lifetime of new Si, that information classification (how sensitive is the IP) starts from a high level even if the product will eventually become public. There's also normally a period when the parts are not public but under NDA for selected partners and not just internal anymore. These partners will need tools for the new Si and, once again, it's not about the kind of NDA, it's that GPL discloses the IP, ergo I can't have non-public IP and GPL code. Then the part and the debugging documents get publicly announced and, at this time, we can add officially support for it in OpenOCD. Unfortunately it's unlikely that developers that have been working with that Si already will switch development tools just because the part is public and, by definition, they should have had something already in the phase I described before. By having the license we have now for OpenOCD the "intermediate" phase can't be covered, that's a fact and only changing the OpenOCD license could make it possible. Again, I'm *not* pushing for a change, just to consider the situation for scenarios most contributors might not have thought about. I like working on OpenOCD and getting new users, also big names (!), would be great for the project, and currently we are precluding it. This has nothing to do with keeping the code changes private or not going back upstream, it's about the timeline of these contributions. I've been doing open source for personal projects since 2003 and without seeing also the corporate side I might not have understood that some things are not done with evil intent but need to happen as a normal part of the development/production cycle. And we all know that having GPL code doesn't prevent usages which are not really good for the community, like non-upstreamed forks adding less than stellar code which would be a nightmare to merge! This is my personal view on the matter, of course, and no official position from my company (which, by the way, is one of the main contributors to the linux kernel - possibly the top corporate one in 2014 - so we do take open source seriously). To the specific questions, Paul: - well, I'm not really "back" as I never left OpenOCD development, quite the contrary, hopefully we'll see new stuff not far in the future! - I'll send the GPL change request to our legal guys, I didn't take part in the initial definition so it might just have been an oversight on both sides - don't expect a quick answer here though - good catches with CLANG, I'll make sure we'll have some fun in my team here fixing all of them! Cheers, Ivan Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen, Deutschland Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Christian Lamprechter, Hannes Schwaderer, Douglas Lusk Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr./VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt a.M. (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
