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 OpenOCD copyright holder must explicitly > > agree. Lack-of-NAK is not the same thing as agreement. They contributed > > under a particular legal agreement. They can agree to change it later. > > It can't be changed for them. > > I'm looking for the easy solution first, that is, if only _one_ person > provides a NACK then we simply forget about this relicensing idea right > away (unless someone is willing to strip out that person's code and > rewrite it which is silly IMHO).
Well, there's the "immediate NAK" from folk currently on this mailing list; yes, that'd rule it out quickly! But lacking one of those it's not a "go" either. That rough list had over fifty names and getting the corporate approvals is rarely fast even if it does happen. I suspect FSF would not be keen on relicensing this particular exception, to pick just one name. > Personally I'd try to fix the libftdi issue first... if I was using > Windows that is. Yes. That's an insurmountable "if" though! > 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. Safer IMO not to though ... especially if a D2XX.dll (or whatever) is distributed with the OpenOCD binary. > Currently the library must be available for openocd to execute at all, > but if dlopen() was used instead then the libftd2xx usage would be > merely equivalent to a plugin. And aren't loadable modules for OpenOCD > on the roadmap? Actually it would not be equivalent to a plugin ... and plugins have their own licensing issues. It's been a few years since I participated in such discussions, but perhaps a few folk here have noticed the GCC 4.4 licensing discussions. GCC is set up to support plugins in the near future, and finalizing the license terms for that caused some release delays. I'm sure that some of the technical issues there would be relevant, and recent. - Dave _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
