On 08/10/2021 13:10, Antonio Borneo wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 12:36 PM Christopher West
> <cw...@thedigitaledge.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's a shame some vendors are so anti-users that they do not release
>>> useful documentation and code for their tools. Guess they should be
>>> boycotted especially given other much more friendly tools and vendors
>>> exist.
>>
>>
>> It's a shame but I'm stuck with this one as it was just in my price range
>> and as it had pyocd support I thought I could easily port it.
>
> From the "advertisement" in their website it is supposed to be a fast
> adapter (didn't dig more to find how much fast) so it could have been
> interesting to have it in OpenOCD.
> But the license is a blocking point. GPL-v2 code cannot be linked with
> nor can load and use a library that is incompatible with GPL-v2.
>
That is not entirely correct. (Note that IANAL - and this is just my
two cents, as an OpenOCD user and P&E Micro debugger owner, not as an
OpenOCD developer.)
First, there is no problem if the library in question is considered a
"system" library - otherwise it would be impossible to use any GPL'ed
code on a Windows system. Now, P&E's DLL's are hardly standard system
libraries on most Windows systems, but it /could/ be argued that they
are "system libraries" on a system consisting of a PC with a P&E Micro
device attached.
Secondly, there are plenty of cases of GPL software connecting to
proprietary software as long as that software is not written solely for
use with the GPL software, and interfacing goes strictly through public
interfaces. Binary blob graphics drivers for Linux is an example. Such
cases are controversial, of course.
Thirdly, end-users can do whatever they like here. There should be no
problem having GPL'ed code in OpenOCD that will attach to a P&E Micro
DLL - which the user downloads and installs themselves, independently of
OpenOCD.
Of course it would be best if P&E would release more details of their
devices and protocols, or release interface software under open source
software. But there's no doubt that they make popular and useful
hardware at reasonable prices, and there are many people who would like
to use them with OpenOCD. I know /I/ would (mostly with Linux, but
sometimes with Windows). Licensing, open source code and code freedom
are vital concepts - but so is usability for end users. Where is the
benefit for OpenOCD or its users if P&E Micro owners have to use
expensive and/or inferior hardware and software due to what is really a
bureaucratic issue?
David
