Re: [Openocd-development] OpenOCD license

[Ronald Vanschoren]

> Having said this I don't understand how you (or anyone sensible) could support > violating licenses. Do you have the habit of breaking laws for the sake of it? Please show me the exact lines in GPL v2 that _clearly_ say linking FTD2xx with OpenOCD is a violation of the license. If one binary version of OpenOCD can work without the library (using the other interfaces) and only enable FTD2XX support when the library is present there is NO issue. FTD2XX is NOT a derived work of OpenOCD so it should NOT be licensed as GPL, end of story! How did Java GPL applications work in the past then (before Java was open source)? It links to DLL's, a VM,... I couldn't  make modifications to standard Java classes either. This has nothing to do with breaking the law for the sake of it, this has to do with people having hidden agendas and trying to hide behind the most gray are in software history. Be honest and tell us what this is all about. > This is not a theoretic issue I really don't understand how this is not a theoretic issue. Is someone getting sued? If not, it's theoretic. > GPL is the license and it states that whatever you link > against and distribute should respect GPL freedom Again: show me the line in GPL v2. The whole license doesn't use the word "link" once. Don't even try to send a link to the FAQ, that's ONE interpretation, not legally binding whatsoever. > You can do things about this, for instance persuading FTDI to free the > FTD2xx driver source and relicense it with GPL Good luck, they don't care. > You wouldn't be able to do modifications on the FTD2xx library, so no point > for this. You also wouldn't be able to modify it using any of the options in the various threads. If you can live with working around the violation (at least what you interpret as a violation) then why bother? The end result will be the same: People will use OpenOCD and FTD2xx and FTD2xx will NOT be GPL. Why make it more difficult for people to do this? > If you (or others) are so interested in a license change, then answer this > questions: Personally I'm not asking for a license change. My interpretation of GPL says linking to FTD2xx is not a violation. > What I don't understand so far is why it is so important to add an exception > to the license instead of: > > Improving free FTDI library Please do, it'll take a long time as far as I understand the people who could know. > Asking FTDI to release and free the FTD2xx library Never gonna happen... > Make people interested in running FTD2xx build his own copy/binary of openocd That's actually what I do, I personally don't care about this discussion as worst case I'll build my own version. What does bother me is that other people will have to do the same and might not be able to. Also the risk is real that FTD2xx support will get lost over the years because nobody actively maintains/tests it as it's not an official feature. gr. Ronald -------- Original Message  -------- Subject: [Openocd-development] OpenOCD license From: Raúl Sánchez Siles <rsanch...@infoglobal.es> To: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de Date: Wed Jun 24 2009 16:55:32 GMT+0200 (Romance Standard Time) Hello: I'll just participate in this horrible flame once. On Wednesday 24 June 2009 14:02:26 Ronald Vanschoren wrote: it sucks to have to be the one to push for license compliance like this Then don't! I'm just a user of OpenOCD so you have all right to ignore what I'm saying as you'll find that I'm less important, but it's about time people here start to realize the real "clients" are users and not developers and users don't give a sh*t about GPL violations. You are not less important, you are just another kind. "Clients" are important as well, just that you (we) don't pay for using the software. Having said this I don't understand how you (or anyone sensible) could support violating licenses. Do you have the habit of breaking laws for the sake of it? Why would anyone want to waste time and effort on fixing this purely theoretic issue? Use the time to implement useful features like SWD or threadsupport instead. You're acting like you have no choice but to point out this issue and write 700 mails about it. You of all people can fix it easily. Give up your copyright or allow relicensing it under anything that is not as gray and debatable as GPL. I don't think enforcing one's rights is loosing time. This is not a theoretic issue. GPL is the license and it states that whatever you link against and distribute should respect GPL freedom, among others, being able to get the source code. You can do things about this, for instance persuading FTDI to free the FTD2xx driver source and relicense it with GPL or any other compatible license for the issue: adm...@ftdichip.com As a sidenote I still don't see the issue. The spirit of GPL is to allow to make modifications to an application that is distributed in binary form. OpenOCD with FTD2xx allows this, no discussion! So stop using the FAQ of people holier then the pope to argument OpenOCD can't be released on Windows. You wouldn't be able to do modifications on the FTD2xx library, so no point for this. I really don't get it. If OpenOCD were my "baby" I would like to see it get popular and loved around the world. What's the use of having a super-great application that nobody will use because some people are stubborn and don't see further then idealistic BS. If OpenOCD or whatever other is my "baby", I would do what I would like with it. Trying to get it popular, maybe not, give it for free, get paid for it or even license it under GPL terms. In this case rules were dictated from the beginning. Just my 2 cents but I'm quite sure a lot more people are getting tired of this. Change the license or ignore the theoretic violation and get the next version out there in binary form for Windows using FTD2xx. If you (or others) are so interested in a license change, then answer this questions: · Have you contacted every copyright holder and ask for his opinion? · if (s)he is reluctant to change license what will give you in compensation? · Are you willing to pay money for the work they have done to change license? · Are you willing to accept anyone is not going to admit a license change? License is not democracy, not even meritocracy, is consensus. License is what it is and only an agreement of all copyright holders can change that. If I had something to say I would ask every contributor to state if they allow a relicense. If not, strip out their code and rewrite it. That can't take longer then making the workarounds people are discussing now. While we're at it, demand that contributors donate their copyright to the OpenOCD foundation or whatever, so these discussions are a thing of the past. I don't want to run a 2nd application to be able to use FTD2xx on windows. I already have to run OpenOCD and gdb, more then enough to keep track off. gr. Ronald What I don't understand so far is why it is so important to add an exception to the license instead of: · Improving free FTDI library · Asking FTDI to release and free the FTD2xx library · Make people interested in running FTD2xx build his own copy/binary of openocd Most of this options requires less work than tirelessly quarreling on the list. It is possible not using FTD2xx, it is also possible using it. Whoever is interested enough on any of those aspects should care for it, but not putting pressure or insulting(*) developers to do what they claim. Why is it easier to put pressure on developers who actually does a great job and not on a company that should encourage its products to be sell? (*) I don't refer you, Ronald. Regards, Pd: This e-mail express a strictly individual position.

_______________________________________________
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development