On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 12:59 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote: > > On Jun 23, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Zach Welch wrote: > > > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 20:20 +0200, Freddie Chopin wrote: > > [snip] > >>> Why do you consider it OK to ignore a license just because it > >>> inconveniences you? Do you hold the same view regarding things you > >>> create? > >> > >> Why do you consider it OK to overinterpret the license just because > >> it > >> inconveniences you? In things I create I take the pragmatic view - > >> when > >> something is given for free (like the ftd2xx.dll library) than it is > >> meant to be used, for free - I'm not creating artificial problems > >> that > >> would prevent me to use that "something". > > [snip] > > > > Why do you consider it OK to ignore what I and other contributors are > > saying about the license? > > Because you are only a fraction of the community and the community as > a whole decides.
Wrong. A single copyright holder can prevent changes to the license. Hi. That's me. > > Why do you feel it necessary to disrespect > > our copyright claims? > > I don't see how he is. Now, the two interpretations of the license > allow slightly different uses, but that isn't disrespect, it's a > difference of opinion. One that can't be settled by restating each > other's side. There needs to be discussion or an actual legal > analysis that shows which interpretation is correct. Do you dispute my claims to some fraction of the copyrights to OpenOCD? Do you believe that fraction to be sufficient to give me legal standing? I believe that I can make such 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? > > > > Probably, but so far, we've seen nothing but conjecture from both sides. True. It would take a court battle to find out anything certain here. > > You are being disrespectful to contributors that have made this > > decision; it is theirs to make and theirs alone. > > No, the decision was to distribute under the GPL, not a specific > interpretation of the GPL. If it turns out that Freddie's > interpretation has more legal ground, then you are stuck with > complying. That also isn't being disrespectful. It's being true to > the letter of the license. I feel fairly confident that I understand these terms of the GPL. > > In that way, there is > > no doubt that you _are_ creating problems by beating this dead horse. > > There is only no doubt to you and a few others. This isn't a dead > horse to the community. It's a discussion where a few people want > their way and refuse to hold discussion about alternatives. >From the perspective of my contributions, it is dead. > > What will it take to get you and others to drop this issue? > > An actual resolution by the community and not a triumvirate > declaration based on their interpretation of the license. I think you have a misunderstanding about copyright law. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Zach > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Openocd-development mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development > > > -- > Rick Altherr > [email protected] > > "He said he hadn't had a byte in three days. I had a short, so I split > it with him." > -- Unsigned > > _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
