On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 18:39 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote: > > On Jun 23, 2009, at 5:53 PM, Zach Welch wrote: > > > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 17:07 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote: > >>> But since you bring it up, sunk costs actually more relate to > >>> costs of > >>> abandoning work that should have been profitable, because conditions > >>> change that prevent the profit from being realized (or bigger > >>> profits > >>> becoming available through other means). Thus, my costs here will > >>> be > >>> sunk if and only if I chose to depart from the community (or am > >>> exiled). > >>> > >> > >> I suggest you look up the economic definition of sunk cost. It has > >> to > >> do with a cost that is incurred with no way to recover it. Your > >> contribution of time can never be recovered once it has been made. As > >> such, it should not be used in decision making once the cost has been > >> incurred. Any contributions made by you up to this point are sunk > >> and > >> should not be considered when making any future decisions. > > > > I would be deluded to believe that all of my time will be recovered > > directly, unless I were to create a dongle or some other device that > > leverages all of those hours and made profits that paid off all of > > these > > investments ten times over. I stand by my assertion that those costs > > will not be "sunk" unless such plans fail to come through. > > > > That said, I might be ambitious (or on the verge of delusion) to > > believe > > that such could happen, so I will concede the point -- grudgingly -- > > that most of my time will probably end up sunk. ;) > > > > You seem to be missing the point. Once you've used your time to > contribute, you can never get that time back. Compensation for the > time doesn't change that. You can never undo your contribution and go > back to where you started. This is in contrast to purchasing > something. In general, you can return the purchase and receive your > money back.
Well, I have been going on my understanding from reading this about a year or so ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost I protest your claims, but this should be settled over a beer. :) While entertaining, this aside is not constructive for the community. > >>> As you agreed, I have enough standing to take this as far as > >>> required in > >>> an attempt to enforce this interpretation, whether or not I win. > >>> Thus, > >>> my opinion needs to matter for that reason alone, because I am not > >>> simply treading water in legal waters: I think my boat floats. > >> > >> You certainly can, but the community can also decide to remove your > >> copyrights from the project and do whatever they want. At that > >> point, > >> you have no legal recourse on future distributions. > > > > True. Is this where you are leaning, personally? > > > > No, just pointing out that it is an option. You've been making many > statements about how things cannot be done because you won't allow it > as a copyright holder. Just be aware that being a copyright holder > doesn't grant you that ability. You'd be better off discussion things > rather than attempting to force an outcome via a threat. Okay, I suppose I should attempt to clarify that misinterpretation of whatever it is that I wrote to give it to you. All of my assertions stand from the perspective of drawing black-and-white lines around what I see as compliant, with regard to my understanding of the GPL. They do not mean to be assertions about the community can decide to do; however, I am trying to warn everyone about what I would perceive as a violation of the GPL. While I could very well be wrong on some of my finer points, I expect for others in the community to provide convincing arguments with a viable legal basis for their differing opinions. I have tried to make my arguments clear in this last regard. Have I failed to provide sufficient reasoning against those options that I have enumerated as compliant or non-compliant? > >>> > >>> I have offered my services repeatedly to those who need it to help > >>> resolve this situation with technical solutions. > >> > >> With lots of grandstanding about ensuring those solutions will also > >> be > >> covered by the GPL even if there is no strict reason that they must. > > > > Please explain this further, particularly the part about "even if > > there > > is no strict reason that they must". I cannot imagine that you are > > suggesting violating the GPL, so this does not parse for me right now. > > > > I am willing to build GPL-compatible solutions, while others would > > rather try to work around the GPL. Fixing the open solution is easier > > than trying to change the license, and it's cheaper than paying > > lawyers. > > > > I do not want to give my work under a license that lets others get the > > work for free, because it is fair for me to try to make a little money > > for the effort it will take. Otherwise, what is wrong with the GPL > > for > > a reference implementation? Did you even read the part of the other > > e-mail where I said the door for proprietary work will be open no > > matter > > what license OpenOCD chooses in this capacity? And that I would be > > willing to dual-license said work? What is wrong about any of this? > > > > Yes, you acknowledged the "loophole" of a clean implementation of a > JTAG over TCP/IP library. That doesn't change your statements that if > you choose to work on it, it will be licensed under the GPL. NO! It would be GPL if I was to produce it without any help from the community, without the support of the vendors that should have paid to implement such support years ago. I someone would want to pay me for these efforts, then I would release it under more liberal terms. This is simple capitalism. And with _that_ remark, I really desperately want to drop the "is that wrong?" line of query.... :) I hate it, but what other viable option do I have, Comrade? Oh, no... please do not answer that either!!! That requires a full keg to discuss properly. > >>> Instead, I am being > >>> asked to give up my GPL copyright claims on the work that I have > >>> done, > >>> without any compensation. > >> > >> No one has asked that at all. Rather, there has been requests to > >> discuss alternatives to the few Zach sanctioned technical solutions. > >> You don't need to participate in them, but you should recognize that > >> other copyright holders have the right to discuss alternatives even > >> if > >> they don't align with your wishes. > > > > By asking to add an exception to the license, that is exactly what is > > happening here, unless you would like to remove my changes -- as you > > have repeated pointed out is possible. Your repetition of this > > gives me > > concern that you would consider such an option as appealing. > > > > You seem to be confusing discussion with resolution. There has been > discussion of an exception to the license, not a resolution to do so. > Therefore, no one has asked you to give up any copyright claims. In > fact, a change of licensing wouldn't constitute giving up those claims > either. It has been resolved that I will not change the license on the trunk. At this point, Øyvind does not want to see the license changed, which means any change -- today -- would be prior to r214. By this evidence, the repository and project are and will continue to be GPL. You can't change it, because he will not let you -- without _concrete_ evidence about why. Was this ambiguous in some way that I am not seeing? All of this "discussion" will be endless, without an actual legal clause to add to the license. At which point, you may or may not convince other copyright holders to agree to change. None of that activity needs to be distracting the community from developing actual solutions that will solve the technical problems. I would prefer for all such threads to go off-list. Organize such a coup somewhere else. Unless the community wants to waste my donated time answering e-mails, the discussion is pointless unless someone wants to talk seriously about a fork. Fork us or don't, but this discussion is wasting countless hours of my time. I would much rather actually be working on constructive solutions to our newly discovered problems. > >>> Are you kidding me? Under what obligation am > >>> I required to help others that project from violating the GPL > >>> license? > >> > >> None and no one has asked you to. There has been no clear resolution > >> either way. You have expressed your dissent. Should the community > >> decide to do a 0.2.0 release in such a way that violates the GPL and > >> contains your copyrighted code, you have the ability to assert your > >> rights via the legal system. > > > > I have been cajoled and ridiculed for taking my present stance. I > > have > > been seeing a wide range of pressures from users and contributors to > > give the community an exception for this library. I reject your > > assertion that no one has asked me; I claim that every new request > > asks > > the same question of me anew. I am very sensitive to the needs of the > > community, regardless of what you may want to say to the contrary. > > > > There has been lots of discussion about the spectrum of options > available to the community. Those are not mandates. Those are not > requests for immediate action. They are discussion to determine the > proper resolution. Take a step back and look at the discussions. > Nowhere has anyone asked or requested that anyone else give up their > claims to copyright or to change the license. There is just the > presentation of possible solutions for evaluation by the community. I suppose you are right; however, your last message effectively offered removal all of my contributions from the repository as a potential option to consider. You do not see that in and of itself as an attempt to see that I lose my copyrights? Please realize that you can't really do that; I would lead the branch that would remain GPL-compatible -- while the other would not. The fork could not legally take any changes from the GPL repository, because it would be imposing additional restrictions (which are prohibited by the terms of the GPL, right?). Furthermore, have you received any hate mail? You can see what has been directed at me on the list. I am sorry this debate rages on, without a lot of strong confidence in contrary opinions. I stand by what I say, though every individual should get their own legal advice. Never trust anything you say on a mailing list, even from me. Or do. Whatever. > > However, I would be screwing a much bigger community than OpenOCD if I > > were to allow an exception to the GPL. I would be undermining the > > broader free software community. I can't live with that. Can you? > > When there are now abundance of compliant technical solutions? > > > > There are other prominent open-source projects that have provided > exceptions to the GPL such as GCC. That didn't undermine the larger > free software community. We should also be clear that you are > referring to the free software community that supports the GPL. There > are plenty of other free software communities that prefer other > licenses that are in many ways more free for both developers and > users. Would an exception for FTDI upset Stallman? Probably. Would > it undermine the communities that support the BSD license or enter > directly into the public domain? Not a bit. Personally I find the > GPL to be too far reaching and limiting to the developers and the > users. I'm not going to elaborate since that is far from the point of > this discussion. Sure. All great ideas, but you will find me too much like Stallman in these examples. My argument derives solely from the fact that open source alternatives exist. A proprietary driver is not the only solution, and options how been show to allow proprietary drivers via build kits or sockets. The lack of an exception does not prevent the operation or development of these devices, in any respect. So even a GPL implementation of a socket interface would create a _enormous_ opportunity for proprietary interfaces, compared to the non-existent possibility today. > I do respect that OpenOCD is currently licensed under the pure GPL. I > also acknowledge that this makes linkage to the D2XX library > problematic for distribution. The community (or at least the > copyright holders) need to come to a consensus on how to resolve this > and implement it. Until that happens, discussion on possible ways to > resolve it are completely appropriate for this list. I'm firmly > against any individuals attempting to limit that discussion on the > basis that they don't agree with certain options. Just because GPL- > compliant options have been suggested does _not_ mean that the > community is limited to choosing from them. As I said, it has been resolved -- unless Dominic will lead a fork from pre-r214 (or thereabouts), or someone provides suitable legalese that convinces Mr. Harboe to change the license for some more revisions. Again, I do not think there is any continued value "discussing" licensing issues on the list, because they will require serious effort that I do not believe anyone actually intends to execute in the face of the alternative solutions. I really feel sorry for those who feel the legal solution is necessary, when a good engineer should be able to produce the required "workaround" in fairly short order -- using the ideas put through the list to date. If anyone _does_ intend to pursue the legal actions require to change the license for OpenOCD, then I want to hear about it soon. I will not be happy if the community gets torn apart again later, when such language has become available. > > I said in another thread that I now see this as a "blocker" for 0.2.0. > > OpenOCD needs to provide a GPL-compliant solution for these users > > before > > anyone produces more binary releases from the trunk w/ FTD2XX. Each > > individual distributor can decide for themselves whether or not I have > > the passion and ability to pursue violators to seek such compliance. > > > > Technically, nothing is required from the project-side. The > infringement happens solely at the time of distribution, not at the > time of authoring or compilation. Since OpenOCD is only released as > source code, the project is not directly affected by any > infringement. Doing nothing still leaves packagers and distributors > open to the possibility of committing infringement rather easily, but > that is still a choice made by them, not us. D2xx is by default > disabled. _If_ we choose to do anything for 0.2.0, it could be as > simple as adding a warning that by having D2xx enabled, the resulting > binaries cannot be distributed. Technically, I agree. We are not required to do anything. BUT... I believe distributors would be better off having a solution for this, don't you think? I am trying very hard to make compliance acceptable for the user community, since I am pushing so hard to see full GPL compliance. I am not asking for anything more than what I expected -- and should have been expected, legally speaking -- from members of this community from the very beginning. The most immediate solution would be a build kit. One contributor has the expressed his intention to provide such a tool. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
