On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Øyvind Harboe <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Xiaofan Chen <[email protected]> wrote: >> I am not a GPL wiz nor a fan of GPL. > > Noted. I appreciate that you try to work constructively here even > if you don't like the license. Which you've made clear on previous > occasions.
Thanks. Actually I am okay with GPL license (take note libusb-1.0 is LGPL and libusb-win32 is LGPL/GPL and I mainly contribute to those two projects) but rather like other more liberal license better than GPL within the open source licenses. What I have problems with are more like those "fan boy", be it Linux fan boy or Windows fan boy or GPL fan boy or or anti-GPL fan boy. In terms of OS, I am kind of OS neutral and like cross-platform stuff, be it free or non-free, open-source or non-open-source, GPL or non-GPL. >> Just wondering if the codes can be released as public domain or other >> open source license which is compatible with GPL and >> yet accept anonymous contributions and then OpenOCD >> can take it. > > This has nothing to do with license, it has to do with copyright. We need > the copyright holder to provide it under a license we can use. I see. This makes sense. > We *can*, in a pinch, accept BSD license with no advertising clause, but > why that would make sense to anybody, I don't know. FUD? I do not understand this. >>> I know there are anonymous contributions in Linux. >> Linux's issues with anonymous contributions >> http://kerneltrap.org/node/5972 >> >> I think the patch is big enough to be categorized as >> "more subsantial piece of work" and not a "small patch". My main point is actually this one. If you want to follow Linux's way, then probably this is not acceptable. -- Xiaofan _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
