On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Zach Welch wrote: > Nicolas, > > I figured a simple NACK would not suffice, given the range of topics > this thread has covered. This is not all meant for you, as I expect you > have heard these arguments once or twice in the past. :) I just wanted > to post to this thread once (and for all).
In all honesty, I'm playing devil advocate all along, and prodding for opinions with a stick. ;-) > On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 00:28 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > [snip] > > Now... who can make that call? Is there someone with code in OpenOCD > > who is against such a relicensing? > > Yes. OpenOCD *is* GPL. I would _not_ have contributed as much as I > have to the code, if I thought anyone could later distribute versions > with proprietary extensions. I will vehemently oppose and challenge all > such use cases, though this statement deserves some clarification. Clarifications are good, but at least this settles the licensing issue, as I was expecting. I'm even surprised it took so long for someone to stand up and proclaim a veto. Nicolas _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
