On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 23:52 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Zach Welch<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 23:37 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > >> > You will need to get confirmation from other contributors, as I think > >> > the actual revision might be far lower than anyone realizes presently. > >> > >> I started my contributions at svn 214 (or earlier, not easy to see > >> from a cursory look at the logs). > > > > Just so we are clear (in this thread), are you for or against adding an > > exception to the GPL? > > Against currently. > > The current technical problems are just a tiny bump in the road > compared to the >2000 revisions we have in SVN. > > We need a robust license(GPL is that) and we need to make sure that > all the things we want open stay open. Who's to say what the effects > of an exception would be? Where would it start? Where would it stop? > > There are LOTS of closed source hardware debuggers out the(good ones, > we use them every day). The whole point of OpenOCD is that it is ... open.
I would like to point out that my latest (and long) reply to David Brownell explains that we have outlined the door for giving away compatibility with closed-source solutions. It will only be a matter of time until it has been opened enough for vendors to walk through, though whether or not any choose to do so remains a bigger question in my mind. The GPL v2 poses no obstacles here, for the technically adept. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
