On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 17:38 -0400, Duane Ellis wrote: > zach> Please DO NOT try to cheat the GPL license. You do not understand how > zach> far I am willing to take these matters, and I believe any form of > binary > zach> distribution to be a violation: a DLL wrapper, a binary patch, > anything! > > Let me ask this another way. I believe the question is some what moot, > and was moot 4 years ago one OpenOCD was originally written. > > ======== > Basic thesis statement, and IANAL... But I can sound like one. > ======== > > If I am the original author of a body of work, I hold the original > copyright and can license that body of work as I please, under the GPL > with any exception that I please. Those that follow do not have the > ability to further restrict, nor change that license. > > As the original copyright holder, I can choose to explicitly write > an exception for a specific use case of the package (or fail to), > however - if my personal actions effectively construct and demonstrate > that use case - is valid and acceptable - then it is an unwritten exception. > > You cannot change my original intention, nor can you change that > original license and/or any exception that may have been granted before > you got involved. > > ======== > Argument. > ======== > > It is well know that Dominic Rath, is the original author of OpenOCD. > By reviewing his original releases that I find in the SVN repository, I > can't get back to Rev1, Rev 50 fails, Rev 75 works, By Dominic's on > hand purposely created OpenOCD to support the "ftd2xxx" library on windows. > > As I understand (and Laurent or Dominic can confirm) Domenic worked with > Laurent to help develop the ftd2xx driver (and library) based jtag key. > > Perhaps - I do not now - but I assume. Dominic and other developers of > the package at the time actively participated and encouraged the package > to be *USED*WITH* and in fact *SOLD*WITH* this 'incompatible library' > > While not *explicitly* *written* I view this as an original exception > that was unwritten, but granted, as demonstrated by the original author, > and original copyright holder of the package as an acceptable exception. > > We as a group, perhaps may not like this fact, but it is what it is. I > can not change that original exception, nor can anyone else. It was part > of the deal when each of us started to contribute to OpenOCD. > > For example - see the Amontec "Application note - copyright 2000 to > 2006" which explicitly references the FT22xx drivers. > > http://www.amontec.com/pub/amt_ann006.pdf > > I also point out the history of openocd on the Amontec web site > > http://www.amontec.com/openocd.shtml (bottom of the page) > > The person who can clarify any misunderstanding is Domenic, and Dominic > alone.
The problem with your argument is that the license in the tree is GPL; the license in all of the source code headers is GPL. There are no exceptions stated anywhere in the tree. Consequently, this demonstrates that my contributions were made under the GPL without any exceptions, and I imagine that I am not the only contributor to have come to this particular conclusion based on these same facts. I am afraid that your intent will not matter even one iota, in a court of law. If you want to make exceptions, then they do not apply to the new code. You cannot retroactively change the license; however, you are free to fork the code at a point prior to my having a claim on the copyrights, and make an exception there. Since said license will not be compatible with the GPL anymore, you may not use the changes that I contributed. However, this further presumes that I am the only one that will object to such a change. That may not be the case, and I hope that others authors that share my views will step forward to confirm this point. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
