Am 09.10.21 um 13:13 schrieb David Brown: > > > 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?
Here are my two cents. I'm open source developer. I do it, because I care about my freedom. I prefer to give my personal time to make great GPLed software. I do not do EULA or BSD, my choice is GPL. I do not use Windows or Mac. So, why developers use GPL? Well, mostly to tell in-officially "fuck you, closed source world!". P&E Micro made a decision and make closed HW + software. If you, as user say; i like this HW, but i do not like this software, so i'll pay this company for HW and SW (yes, you pay for both), and hope some developer will make me great soft for free... Do it sounds any how sane? If you do not like the software of this company, why do you pay for it? The only feedback working by any company is money. If you pay for it, then every thing is great, why should we change anything?! So, if OpenOCD devs decided to take GPL and not BSD or LGPL, or EULA. And this decision was made for reason, it can't be just boiled down to "bureaucratic issue". The choice of GPL is a clear message: "we do not like DLLs!" -- Regards, Oleksij
