On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 21:33 +0200, Michael Bruck wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 20:49, Zach Welch<z...@superlucidity.net> 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?
A fair question. The key solutions (build kit and sockets) have been covered, and I also suggested getting the vendor to switch to the LGPL. Why did I choose to withhold these solutions? Because I want to see libusb and libfdti fixed, as I have made clear from the beginning. Professionally, I work on open source software, so I have zero incentive to enable users of proprietary software to avoid the GPL restrictions. These loopholes stand to allow proprietary software to continue to work better than the free alternatives. For a supposedly free and open software project, that seems like shameful behavior to me. I would have betrayed my own values -- and the values of the free software community -- if I had suggested them. However, it would have been a bigger betrayal of this community to withhold confirmation of their validity. In each case, I was fast to provide assurance that these solutions would be acceptable. I could have simply ignored those suggestions and allowed others to posit my opinion, channeling discussions back to the open source solutions. I did not do anything like that; I have been working to ensure that the community considers all of the options fully. It is a tough road to walk, but I would do it the same way if I had to do it over again. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
