On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 02:31 +0300, Yusuf Caglar AKYUZ wrote: > Zach Welch wrote: > > Actually, I see no reason that it cannot be GPL too. It's "only" a > > build tool; it will not be linking to either OpenOCD or FTD2XX, right? > > The full GPL would prevent others from creating proprietary versions of > > your tool, which may or may not be what you desire personally; however, > > your license does not impact the licenses of what the tool builds. This > > is why the "build kit loophole" works: they are totally separate works. > > Otherwise, a GPL package manager could only build/install GPL packages! > > > > Of course, a tool that includes _necessary_ build scripts or components > > for building OpenOCD would be forced to be GPL (see the license), but > > that is not what we are talking about. Developers have everything they > > need to compile everything by hand; you are adding a high-level helper > > script that ties it all together for users, so it is not "necessary". > > > > I hope that others will step forward and correct me if I am wrong on the > > details, but I hope this generally helps clarify these particular > > licensing details. Either way, I would consider adding it to the > > repository in the tools/ directory, if that turns out to be a reasonable > > plan of action for all. What do you think about that? > > > > I'm not an OpenOCD user under Windows but a tool like this is not > hard to implement so I'm willing to integrate further suggestions > from Windows users. When this is a complete solution, I guess it > will help to include this in tools dir.
I think any solution that starts to show signs of success will be worth putting into the tree, so others can submit patches to improve it directly. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
