On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 20:49, Zach Welch<[email protected]> wrote: > Why do you consider it OK to ignore what I and other contributors are > saying about the license? Why do you feel it necessary to disrespect > our copyright claims? If we interpret it thusly, why do you think that > your interpretation should be considered more valid than ours view? > What if I told you that my interpretation is based in part on having > paid an attorney to counsel me in such nuances? Would that matter? > > You are being disrespectful to contributors that have made this > decision; it is theirs to make and theirs alone. In that way, there is > no doubt that you _are_ creating problems by beating this dead horse. > What will it take to get you and others to drop this issue?
During this discussion several suggestions were made how a binary distribution that interacts with ftd2xx could look like. Some of them most likely did not comply with the GPL, other probably do comply with the GPL, even in your certainly very critical view. In these cases your choice of words indicated that these GPL compatible solutions were known to you but you chose not to disclose them to the community. Are there any other solutions that you are aware of but haven't shared in this discussion? Michael _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
