Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:53 PM, Rick Altherr wrote: 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. I have a few questions which I would like each regular contributor to assess, if you can spare a few moments: a) is Rick's last sentence above one that you agree or disagree with ? b) Given the number of revisions and releases of OpenOCD out in the wild, and the lack of any conflict to date (other than the thought experiments posted on the list), do you feel it is a #1 priority to solve for 0.2.0? I have seen a couple of scattered opinions, but am not clear on how a final decision will be made for this release. Statements such as we must do this don't fly with me since prior releases have gone out and the Sun did not go nova. c) Aren't there GPL applications on Linux that can load binary DLL's, I don't know, say the Flash plugin ? d) Is it worth our time to talk to FTDI and see if they can move to GPL ? e) What concrete benefits does the *existing* OpenOCD derive from being GPL licensed, as compared to BSD license ? Rob ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 01:09 -0700, Rob Barris wrote: On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:53 PM, Rick Altherr wrote: 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. I have a few questions which I would like each regular contributor to assess, if you can spare a few moments: a) is Rick's last sentence above one that you agree or disagree with ? Technically, I agree. Politically, I think it better to find a solution for binary distribution. That said, the technical argument probably deserves to win. Others need to provide feedback; I will not dictate our release goals, but I will help lead us to them. b) Given the number of revisions and releases of OpenOCD out in the wild, and the lack of any conflict to date (other than the thought experiments posted on the list), do you feel it is a #1 priority to solve for 0.2.0? I have seen a couple of scattered opinions, but am not clear on how a final decision will be made for this release. Statements such as we must do this don't fly with me since prior releases have gone out and the Sun did not go nova. Well, I think there is value to start pumping out releases, regardless of the potential binary distribution problems. I think Rick is right that these can be worked in parallel, and waiting would only hold back everyone that uses source code distribution or can do without FTD2XX. There are few reasons to delay pursuing releases, but I do not want that to prevent distribution solutions from being developed. Due to the recent confusion and scattering to action on new problems, resources are indeterminate at the moment. I cannot say where we stand, so I am reluctant to make any release decisions yet. c) Aren't there GPL applications on Linux that can load binary DLL's, I don't know, say the Flash plugin ? I will not comment on other projects, sorry. This stuff is complicated. d) Is it worth our time to talk to FTDI and see if they can move to GPL ? LGPL would be fine, but YES YES YES. If you have contacts and leverage, then you are encouraged to use them to this end. The more users that ask them, the more likely they will be to change their minds. I hope. If someone gets a meaningful answer from them that explains why they could never do that, then please post it. If they are simply protecting their library IP, then keep putting pressure on them. Gentle, kind, loving pressure; you know -- the kind that smothers and suffocates. Torches and pitchforks will work better when delivered with a smile and a friendly attitude. We mean business, but we must use the diplomatic approach here -- FTDI has done us no real harm. They are not an enemy, but neither does their present license make them our friend. e) What concrete benefits does the *existing* OpenOCD derive from being GPL licensed, as compared to BSD license ? OpenOCD is GPL. The short answer is enforceable freedoms, but this is not the time or the place to debate licensing pros and cons. Sorry. :) Thanks, Zach ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
Zach Welch pisze: Technically, I agree. Politically, I think it better to find a solution for binary distribution. That said, the technical argument probably deserves to win. Others need to provide feedback; I will not dictate our release goals, but I will help lead us to them. As English is the second language I know, I'm really confused about what exactly do you mean... Any clarifications please? 4\/3!! ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
Rob Barris wrote: I have a few questions which I would like each regular contributor to assess, if you can spare a few moments: a) is Rick's last sentence above one that you agree or disagree with ? I agree technically. A release can be made in the current state, and I could live with that version just fine. However, I see that there are Windows users that would be unhappy with a source-only version (or a binary without D2XX). If developing a solution for them can be done fast, we should wait. Otherwise, there is no harm in releasing 0.2.0 soon and releasing a new version as soon as the solution is release-worthy - there is no need to delay the release for everyone just to wait for one platform. cu Michael ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
-Original Message- From: openocd-development-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:openocd- development-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Zach Welch Sent: woensdag 24 juni 2009 1:10 To: Rick Altherr Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 15:45 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote: impact your mortgage or ability to make a living is false. You just seem to have a problem with someone else profiting from your free contribution regardless of what they have done to justify their price. Actually, I did not claim here that I myself am being hurt, merely that all of professional peers like me suffer from these exceptions because they provide a disincentive for the community to demand open solutions. So this is about *forcing* people/companies to pay in order to get open source projects fixed. (This is just a statement for clarification. It is not a judgement in any way!). I have offered my services repeatedly to those who need it to help resolve this situation with technical solutions. Instead, I am being asked to give up my GPL copyright claims on the work that I have done, without any compensation. Are you kidding me? Under what obligation am I required to help others that project from violating the GPL license? I think Magnus has a good point in saying that the exception for the FTDxx is already there. Not everything needs to be in writing in order to make it legal. If you allow something long enough then you are granting an extra right you can't suddenly revoke. I can see this going two ways: 1) adding the tcp/ip / named pipes interface which will allow connection to any closed source driver 2) grant *one* single explicit exception for the FTDxx driver Pick your poison :-))) Nico Coesel ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 09:46 +0200, Nico Coesel wrote: -Original Message- From: openocd-development-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:openocd- development-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Zach Welch Sent: woensdag 24 juni 2009 1:10 To: Rick Altherr Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 15:45 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote: impact your mortgage or ability to make a living is false. You just seem to have a problem with someone else profiting from your free contribution regardless of what they have done to justify their price. Actually, I did not claim here that I myself am being hurt, merely that all of professional peers like me suffer from these exceptions because they provide a disincentive for the community to demand open solutions. So this is about *forcing* people/companies to pay in order to get open source projects fixed. (This is just a statement for clarification. It is not a judgement in any way!). No, it is about the GPL's design: to force developers to produce open solutions. No one is being forced to pay, but those who cannot develop have no other means at their disposal than diplomacy or bribery. ;) I do not care who does this work (or whether they are paid), but it seems rather clear that it needs to be done. I am ready and willing. I have offered my services repeatedly to those who need it to help resolve this situation with technical solutions. Instead, I am being asked to give up my GPL copyright claims on the work that I have done, without any compensation. Are you kidding me? Under what obligation am I required to help others that project from violating the GPL license? I think Magnus has a good point in saying that the exception for the FTDxx is already there. Not everything needs to be in writing in order to make it legal. right you can't suddenly revoke. Are you willing to defend this position in court? Do you think that others should take this assertion at face value? There are reason contracts are written down, and this kind of crap argument sums them up. I am really getting frustrated by the claim that everyone knew about the exception. I most certainly did not, and you will have an impossible case proving that I accepted these terms in face of the in-tree copy of the unadulterated GPL. Those are the terms I accepted, without any exceptions. I can see this going two ways: 1) adding the tcp/ip / named pipes interface which will allow connection to any closed source driver 2) grant *one* single explicit exception for the FTDxx driver Pick your poison :-))) I chose #1, because #2 is not strictly possible. And because it is the Right Thing To Do for the community, in strategic sense of those words. Now, I cannot be said to be a GPL fundamentalist with such a position, and I have always seen the value of such solutions. This is not new. Michael Fischer just contacted me off-list about this specific solution, which he sees as the best way to move forward out of this mess. I will help him, because of his proactive willingness to move forward on these issues in a constructive manner. Who else deserves such consideration? Cheers, Zach ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 10:52 +0200, Nico Coesel wrote: -Original Message- From: Zach Welch [mailto:z...@superlucidity.net] Sent: woensdag 24 juni 2009 10:27 To: Nico Coesel Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 09:46 +0200, Nico Coesel wrote: -Original Message- I have offered my services repeatedly to those who need it to help resolve this situation with technical solutions. Instead, I am being asked to give up my GPL copyright claims on the work that I have done, without any compensation. Are you kidding me? Under what obligation am I required to help others that project from violating the GPL license? I think Magnus has a good point in saying that the exception for the FTDxx is already there. Not everything needs to be in writing in order to make it legal. right you can't suddenly revoke. Are you willing to defend this position in court? Do you think that others should take this assertion at face value? There are reason contracts are written down, and this kind of crap argument sums them up. It is not crap! If you deviate from a contract long enough then those deviations become part of the contract. Written or not. Over here there are several laws dealing with such situations. For instance: if you use a piece of land for more than 20 years and no-one claims or requires you to buy or rent that piece of land it is yours. Legally! Like it or not. This is not land. You can't stake a claim. The GPL has been in the repository since the very beginning, without an exception. It has been posted no trespassing since day one. I am really getting frustrated by the claim that everyone knew about the exception. I most certainly did not, and you will have an impossible case proving that I accepted these terms in face of the in-tree copy of the unadulterated GPL. Those are the terms I accepted, without any exceptions. Skeleton in the closet. Nothing to be done about that. You think you accepted the GPL terms, but you also accepted the exception. There is enough evidence that the exception existed when you started working on OpenOCD. 'I didn't know' and 'If I knew before' don't work in court. You are opening some seriously unpleasant areas of legal exploration. You have made me start to wonder if it would be possible to bring some sort of claim of misrepresentation against the project authors, were your suggestion to be taken by others. The COPYING file is the standard way of notifying potential authors of a project's license, so I think that I would have a good chance of proving that the authors neglected to inform authors -- whether by intention or accident. Either way, this demonstrates rather clear negligence on the part of the authors, which I believe will defeat your claims. Do you want to keep going down this road? There are more doors that probably remain to be opened, and we can explore them all if you insist. Personally, I want to be done with talking about these matters and start to move on to fix the problems for the community. Sound good? Cheers, Zach ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 12:20 +0200, Dominic Rath wrote: This goes inentionally to you alone, feel free to bring it up on the list if you want... You have made me start to wonder if it would be possible to bring some sort of claim of misrepresentation against the project authors, were your suggestion to be taken by others. The COPYING file is the standard way of notifying potential authors of a project's license, so I think that I would have a good chance of proving that the authors neglected to inform authors -- whether by intention or accident. I suppose that means I have to remove all code you've contributed from the repository in order to protect myself from what you might or might not do. I will also have to ask all distributors to remove any version since january 2009. Actually, that would no longer be acceptable; you are welcome to fork the code, but I ask that you avoid making such changes. The license is and was GPL, and I am now a copyright holder, maintainer, and active contributor to the project. You would be taking a unilateral action that would not be uniformly supported by the OpenOCD community, whereas I am asserting my individual copyrights. I can do what I have done, but the community should vote to exile my changes. You have abdicated your authority in this community, and I resent your showing up here and making threats to remove my code. I have asserted my rights after making a clear case that I have earned the privilege to do so. You have effectively admitted to your own negligence with regards to licensing, which you must now accept like a grown-up. Sorry. I am trying to work with the community. What are you trying to do? Who is the totalitarian dictator here? Not that I think that any remotely sane court would consider your claim, but I certainly wont take this chance. You've been threatening me personally with potential legal actions at least twice, and this is nothing I'm willing to accept. I am threatening violators with action. Are you a violator? No, and I would not take action against you unless you violated my copyrights, which I have no reason to believe is the case or would be. Right? I will also say again that I am not interested in taking action for any past violations, but I am willing to defend my rights in the future. This position was made clear by me from the outset. Your opinion about what a remotely sane court would or would not consider is exactly that, and you need to decide whether you are willing to test it. Please get legal counsel before taking any action with the repository, unless you would like to help constructively move the community out of this morass. That will be my primary intention and focus. Please think about what you've just suggested and feel free to clarify your point. Ditto. Cheers, Zach ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
Hi Dominic, first of all: there is every evidence that the technical problems that USB are encountering these days will be resolved *LONG* before any change in license could be effecuated. I even believe that USB problems will be fixed before the community will have finished debating the ramifications of a specific license change proposal(none has been posted so far). About GPL that was there from the start: One of the *main* reasons I decided to get into OpenOCD at revision 214 (or was it before?) was that I felt confident that the GPL license protected my interests and that a pure GPL license *without* any exceptions was the least of evils. I saw downsides and upsides, but overall I felt that pure GPL was a good choice. There was/is lots of non-GPL alternatives out there that I would have considered instead of OpenOCD. Even more important, I knew that the license could not be changed after I and others had made non-trivial changes without me the community having an oportunity to veto it. After a while I saw that enough work was put down into the GPL license that changing it became impractical for better or worse. One of the nice things about GPL is that it is impossible to put GPL on a project first, then a couple of years later say Ha! I really intended not GPL but some other license Nobody will sue you if you stick to the GPL license that you put down in the first place, but if you start to say I really intended something else than I wrote down, then you're on a slippery slope. -- Øyvind Harboe Embedded software and hardware consulting services http://www.zylin.com ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 14:08 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote: Hi Dominic, first of all: there is every evidence that the technical problems that USB are encountering these days will be resolved *LONG* before any change in license could be effecuated. I even believe that USB problems will be fixed before the community will have finished debating the ramifications of a specific license change proposal(none has been posted so far). About GPL that was there from the start: One of the *main* reasons I decided to get into OpenOCD at revision 214 (or was it before?) was that I felt confident that the GPL license protected my interests and that a pure GPL license *without* any exceptions was the least of evils. I saw downsides and upsides, but overall I felt that pure GPL was a good choice. There was/is lots of non-GPL alternatives out there that I would have considered instead of OpenOCD. Even more important, I knew that the license could not be changed after I and others had made non-trivial changes without me the community having an oportunity to veto it. After a while I saw that enough work was put down into the GPL license that changing it became impractical for better or worse. One of the nice things about GPL is that it is impossible to put GPL on a project first, then a couple of years later say Ha! I really intended not GPL but some other license Nobody will sue you if you stick to the GPL license that you put down in the first place, but if you start to say I really intended something else than I wrote down, then you're on a slippery slope. This is an excellent point regarding the invalidity of I actually meant for the license to X. Would everyone be so keen to accept this if it were put into terms where X was take freedoms from all of you chumps? Coincidentally, that is exactly how I interpret the attempt to relicense the changes to allow an exception for proprietary linkage. At this point, there do not appear to exist any reasonable basis for arguing against this fact: the GPL was always the license for OpenOCD. Arguments to dispute this fact need to provide convincing evidence, and I think the repository justifies our position here -- not an exception. Cheers, Zach ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 14:27 +0200, Laurent Gauch wrote: On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 12:20 +0200, Dominic Rath wrote: / This goes inentionally to you alone, feel free to bring it up on the list if you want... // // You have made me start to wonder if it would be possible to bring some // sort of claim of misrepresentation against the project authors, were // your suggestion to be taken by others. The COPYING file is the standard // way of notifying potential authors of a project's license, so I think // that I would have a good chance of proving that the authors neglected to // inform authors -- whether by intention or accident. // // I suppose that means I have to remove all code you've contributed from // the repository in order to protect myself from what you might or might // not do. I will also have to ask all distributors to remove any version // since january 2009. / Actually, that would no longer be acceptable; you are welcome to fork the code, but I ask that you avoid making such changes. The license is and was GPL, and I am now a copyright holder, maintainer, and active contributor to the project. You would be taking a unilateral action that would not be uniformly supported by the OpenOCD community, whereas I am asserting my individual copyrights. I can do what I have done, but the community should vote to exile my changes. You maybe are holder, maintainer, contributor ... but you are not the CREATOR / AUTHOR ! Are you any of those things, today? Is he contributing, today? Please respect MR. Dominic Rath. He is the CREATOR of OpenOCD 2004 (with 1-2 years or more of intensive coding) I do want to be clear that I do value and respect his contributions and his copyrights, and I welcome both of you to continue contributing to the OpenOCD community in the future. However, neither he nor you have contributed much constructive lately, which means you have effectively abdicated your authority in the community. In an open source community, that authority derives from being a responsible and active contributor. Does this seem reasonable? Tying back into copyright, your authority over the copyrights for your own respective contributions will continue to be respected, in so far as it was expressly written into the repository -- they were released under the GPL without any exceptions. If you or anyone provides sound legal arguments that can refute this claim, I will back off on this assertion. From what I now understand, you had been enjoying dual-licensing by the original author. Unfortunately, that arrangement appears to have ceased to have a legal foundation once the repository accepted contributions from others -- without securing copyright assignments. At that point, any binaries that were produced from those derived works appear to have violated the GPL. This is how it appears to me. As I have been trying to do for others for whom the OpenOCD project provides part of your revenue stream, I encourage you to discuss these matters with your legal counsel. I would be very interested if any responses from these individuals conflict with the assessment that I have been making of the situation; I will be asking the FSF for their opinions on these matters. I was myself a contributor to the project, but before there ais SVN ! Yes, strange for you. But I am a contributor too. I understand that you presently sell dongles and make money from them. Do you plan to contribute directly (with patches) or indirectly (with funding) to help the community solve the current problems? To be clear, you have no obligation to do so, just as we have no obligation to help commercial distributors fix the problems that this licensing SNAFU may have caused. However, I _am_ willing to help those who show an effort to work toward constructive solutions, as I do feel terrible for the angst that this situation has caused the community. I will be sure that we provide a solution for the community, but it may not be good enough for you to use in terms of delivery schedule or performance. What 'project contribution' means for you? - Adding a lot of patches - Donating hardware to end-users - Building binary for easy-of-use - Reading the forum - Writing to the forum - Documenting the project - ... Yup. All those things, and copyright protects all fixed works. All these tasks were needed to bring OpenOCD as it is actually. I have done all of those tasks myself to bring up free software communities. I know it is generally a lot of thankless work, so I do want to generously thank you and all those that helped the community make the project what it is today. Your work has been appreciated. Each project/products needs manager - developer - tester - distributor - end-userS The end-users know what they need. Not always, but the torches and pitchforks helped send a clear message. Saying end-users know what they need [in
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Wednesday 24 June 2009 19:04:37 Zach Welch wrote: Are you any of those things, today? Is he contributing, today? Please respect MR. Dominic Rath. He is the CREATOR of OpenOCD 2004 (with 1-2 years or more of intensive coding) I do want to be clear that I do value and respect his contributions and his copyrights, and I welcome both of you to continue contributing to the OpenOCD community in the future. However, neither he nor you have contributed much constructive lately, which means you have effectively abdicated your authority in the community. In an open source community, that authority derives from being a responsible and active contributor. Does this seem reasonable? The OpenOCD was and always will be my project. I'm constantly following the list, although I'm not able to read each and every post, especially when the number of messages explodes like it did recently. I'm voicing my concerns when I see changes that interfere with some key design ideas that were part of the original code I released. The last issue was the removal of the asynchronous in handlers, which were then reinstalled in a different way but achieving essentially the same goal which was fine with me. I do think it is important to point out how I wanted some things to be used when this isn't clear from the code. I saw speculations about what I might have intended which is when I first responded to the current issue. Being the one who followed the project from its very beginning I believe I do know some things that others may have missed or never heard about. Regards, Dominic ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Dominic wrote: Being the one who followed the project from its very beginning I believe I do know some things that others may have missed or never heard about. So maybe you can answer this ... What does the arp_ prefix in various commands represent? Address Resolution Protocol was my first reaction ... but that doesn't seem relevant to JTAG. ;) (yep, a non-license question!) ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
Dominic, Since this followed your very constructive and friendly reply to my summary of the options and willingness to swear off profits, I have tried to interpret your response herein in the best possible light. Likewise, I hope you will grant me the same consideration, just in case it is needed. ;) On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 19:35 +0200, Dominic wrote: On Wednesday 24 June 2009 19:04:37 Zach Welch wrote: Are you any of those things, today? Is he contributing, today? Please respect MR. Dominic Rath. He is the CREATOR of OpenOCD 2004 (with 1-2 years or more of intensive coding) I do want to be clear that I do value and respect his contributions and his copyrights, and I welcome both of you to continue contributing to the OpenOCD community in the future. However, neither he nor you have contributed much constructive lately, which means you have effectively abdicated your authority in the community. In an open source community, that authority derives from being a responsible and active contributor. Does this seem reasonable? The OpenOCD was and always will be my project. I'm constantly following the list, although I'm not able to read each and every post, especially when the number of messages explodes like it did recently. If you mean it will always be yours in spirit, yes it will. You will always be the spiritual leader of the project. Your willingness to create this project and release it under the GPL has been appreciated by countless developers, and I never want to steal that thunder from you. You deserve to be enshrined in the OpenOCD community forever. However, you can simultaneously acknowledge that you have not been active on this list, so the authority that I spoke of your abdicating is of command authority. The authority to lead the project to where the community needs to go, to manage the infrastructure, and to make executive decisions. Clearly, that last item needs to be clarified between the two of us directly. You are aware that I have been acting as a pro forma leader here, and these recent events saw me moving to take executive actions that I have experience to know were necessary and sufficient to protect the integrity of the OpenOCD IP for all of its contributors. [[When it comes to protecting copyrights, they matter more than users, because the contributors own their the rights to the code.]] Unfortunately, this process was complicated when you entered the debate on the side of an exception. You are still given tacit command authority, with the result being that you nearly led the road down an indefensible legal path. Your off-list threat to remove all of my changes from the repository further demonstrated that you still believe that you can wield absolute power without suffering any consequences. As I have said before now, that is no longer the case. When you use your authority, you effectively override other contributors and maintainers that have been working hard on the project. The rest of us must try to earn (or demand) respect from the community on a periodic basis. That is not a pure meritocracy; this status quo needs to change, with you accepting the same means of attaining privilege: by working on the trunk (or current release branches) and with the user community. Between multiple copyright holders and the GPL, the _only_ fair way to describe OpenOCD would be to say that it is *our* project, with the most active contributors leading the way in authority and responsibilities. In the face of abdication of command authority, the community should hold the project leaders accountable -- or replace them with new active contributors with equivalent authority. That should hold true for you, me, or anyone. Your opinions should always matter and be considered, but you are not as close to the code today as you once were. Authority needs to be in the hands of those who are actively working to improve and maintain the code for the community. If you are not reading every message, then I think those who do should have more authority than you. Does this sound fair? I'm voicing my concerns when I see changes that interfere with some key design ideas that were part of the original code I released. The last issue was the removal of the asynchronous in handlers, which were then reinstalled in a different way but achieving essentially the same goal which was fine with me. I do think it is important to point out how I wanted some things to be used when this isn't clear from the code. I saw speculations about what I might have intended which is when I first responded to the current issue. Being the one who followed the project from its very beginning I believe I do know some things that others may have missed or never heard about. I positively did _not_ mean that you have abdicated your architectural authority or knowledge of the system based on your unique experience. That would have been very big insult, but I fear that may
Re: [Openocd-development] License
David Brownell wrote: On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Dominic wrote: Being the one who followed the project from its very beginning I believe I do know some things that others may have missed or never heard about. So maybe you can answer this ... What does the arp_ prefix in various commands represent? Address Resolution Protocol was my first reaction ... but that doesn't seem relevant to JTAG. ;) That name arp_ was coined by my self an Oyvind last year when we where trying to introduce Reset events and all the other Jim type events. The ARP - stood for: Advanced Reset Process - -Duane. ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
Zach Welch a écrit : Personally, I want to be done with talking about these matters and start to move on to fix the problems for the community. Sound good? Cheers, Zach Agreed! -- Tired of Microsoft's rebootive multitasking? then it's time to upgrade to Linux. http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
Dominic, I agree with your comments, and feel it is a shame this whole situation has occurred. 2) The OpenOCD project itself released binaries linked against FTD2XX on its Berlios page, for example openocd-cygwin-ftd2xx-20060213.tar.gz. I don't think it's totally unreasonable to extrapolate some right of distributing OpenOCD+FTD2XX based on this... 3) I would be willing to add a license exception that allows linking with the FTD2XX library and I invite other major contributors to do the same. The result may not be a OpenOCD rev. 2000+ that's accompanied with this exception, but I suppose we might find some revision where we can formally grant our users a right they have been executing for almost four years. Being a contributor since rev 7 i have no objections to adding a ftd2xx exception. GPL is important, but i do not understand people's objections to adding an exception - who exactly is this hurting? It would be a shame to have to fork openocd. Cheers Spen ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
Could you explain a bit about your thoughts on closed source target and interface drivers together with OpenOCD? I can imagine that a lot of CPU vendors would love the ability to provide a closed source plugin that talks to their CPU. Similarly I believe that there are hardware debuggers that would like to have their product specific code closed source. -- Øyvind Harboe Embedded software and hardware consulting services http://consulting.zylin.com ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:16 +0200, Dominic wrote: Dear List, 1) I wont support any action against someone who distributes OpenOCD binaries linked against FTD2XX as long as there's no viable alternative. When I wrote the OpenOCD the liberties of potential users were paramount, and this hasn't changed. There is no viable alternative to FTD2XX on Windows, and from what I've read this is going to get worse with Vista and Windows 7. This does make things more complicated, but far from clear cut. First, viable alternatives can be developed for Windows, without exceptions of any kind (technical or legal). Second, it is my understanding that failure to ensure compliance on this issue could undermine later enforcement efforts, if other GPL violations of the OpenOCD project license come to light that deserve such action. Is that a door that you want to leave open? Are you willing to sacrifice the ability to enforce the GPL in any capacity over this? I strongly advise you to seek legal counsel before taking any actions, as you appear to be threatening the integrity of the entire project. Certainly, I imagine this was not your intent, but that is nevertheless how I view your the consequences of these intentions. Could actually be funny to watch a GPL case where the original copyright holder states that he sees no problem in linking his GPL licensed code with a proprietary library that is clearly no derivative work of his code... that doesn't even sound too unreasonable... even the GPL FAQ says that linking proprietary libraries may impose legal issues (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs) There is nothing funny about legal cases, when one is involved in them. These issues should be resolved without lawyers, if at all possible; however, my own position comes from having paid for counsel in the past. On what basis do your legal opinions rest? 2) The OpenOCD project itself released binaries linked against FTD2XX on its Berlios page, for example openocd-cygwin-ftd2xx-20060213.tar.gz. I don't think it's totally unreasonable to extrapolate some right of distributing OpenOCD+FTD2XX based on this... I make no claim on those binaries; indeed, I have made no efforts to ask anyone to take down any binaries anywhere. I have stated several times that I do not want to look back at the past, only the future. In that respect, I can make claims on binaries that contain my changes. 3) I would be willing to add a license exception that allows linking with the FTD2XX library and I invite other major contributors to do the same. The result may not be a OpenOCD rev. 2000+ that's accompanied with this exception, but I suppose we might find some revision where we can formally grant our users a right they have been executing for almost four years. You will need to get confirmation from other contributors, as I think the actual revision might be far lower than anyone realizes presently. You definitely can grant these rights for earliest versions that contain only your changes, and you are welcome to do so. However, that creates a fork of that old code, and -- depending on the exact language -- may not be compatible with the current tree. In this last respect, no one has presented anything that remotely resembles the actual verbiage that might be added to the license. Those would need to be vetted by an attorney familiar with the GPL to ensure the new license remained compatible. If you think these processes will be easier than just fixing the code, I believe you find yourself sorely mistaken and poorer for the experience. Personally, I now see this as a blocker for 0.2.0; a technical solution must manifest itself. I have started one myself, but it will cost the vendors for my time. Double, if they don't start stepping up and being more proactive to resolve this. Cheers, Zach ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
Øyvind Harboe wrote: Could you explain a bit about your thoughts on closed source target and interface drivers together with OpenOCD? I can imagine that a lot of CPU vendors would love the ability to provide a closed source plugin that talks to their CPU. Similarly I believe that there are hardware debuggers that would like to have their product specific code closed source. This is always a tradeoff/balance thing. The protocol to talk to MPSSE is well known/open (they do praise developers of open alternatives on thier web site) , their driver and dll are distributed without restrictions but not with source code. So it is not GPL but at the same time it does not put any restrictions on my code in OpenOCD. What is the situation with the ZY1000, I assume that all modifications to the OpenOCD source tree are public, but can you guarantee that the code running on the Zylin1000 does not link to anything that is nonopen and thus violates the GPL ? Regards Magnus ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
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? --Z ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Zach Welchz...@superlucidity.net 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. -- Øyvind Harboe Embedded software and hardware consulting services http://consulting.zylin.com ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Magnus Lundinlun...@mlu.mine.nu wrote: Ųyvind Harboe wrote: Could you explain a bit about your thoughts on closed source target and interface drivers together with OpenOCD? I can imagine that a lot of CPU vendors would love the ability to provide a closed source plugin that talks to their CPU. Similarly I believe that there are hardware debuggers that would like to have their product specific code closed source. This is always a tradeoff/balance thing. The protocol to talk to MPSSE is well known/open (they do praise developers of open alternatives on thier web site) , their driver and dll are distributed without restrictions but not with source code. So it is not GPL but at the same time it does not put any restrictions on my code in OpenOCD. I'm not overly concerned about the USB issue. There are technical solutions proposed and it will be resolved before long I believe. License change is a red herring w.r.t. that technical problem as far as I can understand. What is the situation with the ZY1000, I assume that all modifications to the OpenOCD source tree are public, but can you guarantee that the code running on the Zylin1000 does not link to anything that is nonopen and thus violates the GPL ? zy1000 runs eCos which is GPL compatible. Jim Tcl was a problem, but I fixed that license. zy1000 runs openocd unmodified. -- Øyvind Harboe Embedded software and hardware consulting services http://consulting.zylin.com ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent in sales of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware? Gotta love the impartiality here... The exception could be allowed now and then removed later once the supposed new solutions are done and working. From: Øyvind Harboe oyvind.har...@zylin.com To: Zach Welch z...@superlucidity.net Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 22:52:53 Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Zach Welchz...@superlucidity.net 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. -- Øyvind Harboe Embedded software and hardware consulting services http://consulting.zylin.com ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 21:57 +0100, Spencer Oliver wrote: [snip] GPL is important, but i do not understand people's objections to adding an exception - who exactly is this hurting? Would you like to kick me in the nuts, while saying things like this? The effect would feel little different. Such exceptions hurt professional software developers that want to make a living developing free and open source software -- like me. I think they hurt the entire free and open source software movements, actually. It would be a shame to have to fork openocd. Yes. It would be a shame to see it forked over this, when clear technical solutions have been offered that comply with the GPL and provide exactly the same functionality. I am not ashamed, other than by the willingness of members in this community to attempt to retroactively revise a _legal_document_ that was accepted by contributors like myself. Cheers, Zach ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
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. We all want openocd to be open - I just do not see why adding an exception to ftd2xx is opening any floodgates for other vendors. Cheers Spen ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
Guess what, OpenOCD wasn't started so YOU can get paid. If you don't like the way OpenOCD is managed, get out. You're quite an asswipe. From: Zach Welch z...@superlucidity.net To: Spencer Oliver s...@spen-soft.co.uk Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 23:05:43 Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 21:57 +0100, Spencer Oliver wrote: [snip] GPL is important, but i do not understand people's objections to adding an exception - who exactly is this hurting? Would you like to kick me in the nuts, while saying things like this? The effect would feel little different. Such exceptions hurt professional software developers that want to make a living developing free and open source software -- like me. I think they hurt the entire free and open source software movements, actually. It would be a shame to have to fork openocd. Yes. It would be a shame to see it forked over this, when clear technical solutions have been offered that comply with the GPL and provide exactly the same functionality. I am not ashamed, other than by the willingness of members in this community to attempt to retroactively revise a _legal_document_ that was accepted by contributors like myself. Cheers, Zach ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
Øyvind Harboe wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Magnus Lundinlun...@mlu.mine.nu wrote: Ųyvind Harboe wrote: Could you explain a bit about your thoughts on closed source target and interface drivers together with OpenOCD? I can imagine that a lot of CPU vendors would love the ability to provide a closed source plugin that talks to their CPU. Similarly I believe that there are hardware debuggers that would like to have their product specific code closed source. This is always a tradeoff/balance thing. The protocol to talk to MPSSE is well known/open (they do praise developers of open alternatives on thier web site) , their driver and dll are distributed without restrictions but not with source code. So it is not GPL but at the same time it does not put any restrictions on my code in OpenOCD. I'm not overly concerned about the USB issue. There are technical solutions proposed and it will be resolved before long I believe. License change is a red herring w.r.t. that technical problem as far as I can understand. ?? So you are saying that there soon will be open USB solutions for FT2232 without performance loss and with reasonable work practice on windows hosts ?? Created by whom ? Zylin AS? zy1000 runs eCos which is GPL compatible. Jim Tcl was a problem, but I fixed that license. zy1000 runs openocd unmodified. Good enough. Is FTDI in any way competing with you ? /Magnus ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Photo Leecherphotoleec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent in sales of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware? What do you believe is a fair price for a zy1000 like product? Gotta love the impartiality here... The exception could be allowed now and then removed later once the supposed new solutions are done and working. I believe the USB problem is a red herring. It will be solved *before* any license change could be effectuated. The essence is what license we want. How long do you believe it would take to effectuate change license provided *everybody* would agree? -- Øyvind Harboe Embedded software and hardware consulting services http://consulting.zylin.com ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
We all want openocd to be open - I just do not see why adding an exception to ftd2xx is opening any floodgates for other vendors. I have not seen a specific proposal for new license so I can't really comment. Do you want to list ftd2xx specifically when there are technical solutions to that specific problem proposed that could be effectuated *long* before a license change could be made? -- Øyvind Harboe Embedded software and hardware consulting services http://consulting.zylin.com ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
Nice fail ignoring the impartiality bit. The license could be changed before the libraries are finished, if there weren't a bunch of religious haters who believe are above everyone else. From: Øyvind Harboe oyvind.har...@zylin.com To: Photo Leecher photoleec...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 23:11:14 Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Photo Leecherphotoleec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent in sales of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware? What do you believe is a fair price for a zy1000 like product? Gotta love the impartiality here... The exception could be allowed now and then removed later once the supposed new solutions are done and working. I believe the USB problem is a red herring. It will be solved *before* any license change could be effectuated. The essence is what license we want. How long do you believe it would take to effectuate change license provided *everybody* would agree? -- Øyvind Harboe Embedded software and hardware consulting services http://consulting.zylin.com ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
2009/6/24 Magnus Lundin lun...@mlu.mine.nu: Øyvind Harboe wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Magnus Lundinlun...@mlu.mine.nu wrote: Ųyvind Harboe wrote: Could you explain a bit about your thoughts on closed source target and interface drivers together with OpenOCD? I can imagine that a lot of CPU vendors would love the ability to provide a closed source plugin that talks to their CPU. Similarly I believe that there are hardware debuggers that would like to have their product specific code closed source. This is always a tradeoff/balance thing. The protocol to talk to MPSSE is well known/open (they do praise developers of open alternatives on thier web site) , their driver and dll are distributed without restrictions but not with source code. So it is not GPL but at the same time it does not put any restrictions on my code in OpenOCD. I'm not overly concerned about the USB issue. There are technical solutions proposed and it will be resolved before long I believe. License change is a red herring w.r.t. that technical problem as far as I can understand. ?? So you are saying that there soon will be open USB solutions for FT2232 without performance loss and with reasonable work practice on windows hosts ?? Created by whom ? Zylin AS? :-) There *are* other contributors on this list you know. Look at all the technical posts the last couple of days on this very issue. Look at all the technical problems we have overcome. There are lots of contributors who want to see this fixed. This will be resolved *long* before any license change could be effectuated. zy1000 runs eCos which is GPL compatible. Jim Tcl was a problem, but I fixed that license. zy1000 runs openocd unmodified. Good enough. Is FTDI in any way competing with you ? /Magnus -- Øyvind Harboe Embedded software and hardware consulting services http://consulting.zylin.com ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
2009/6/24 Spencer Oliver s...@spen-soft.co.uk: What is the situation with the ZY1000, I assume that all modifications to the OpenOCD source tree are public, but can you guarantee that the code running on the Zylin1000 does not link to anything that is nonopen and thus violates the GPL ? zy1000 runs eCos which is GPL compatible. Jim Tcl was a problem, but I fixed that license. zy1000 runs openocd unmodified. so why can we not fix the licence here? *all* copyright holders have to agree. For Jim Tcl that was 7 contributors and I was able to contact them all. You have to *convince* everybody that there is such a thing as a *better* license for OpenOCD. Change the license to *what*? I haven't seen a proposed license change that would could be torn apart for analysis. What about unwanted side effects? Do you want closed source target support? Do you want closed source interface drivers? -- Øyvind Harboe Embedded software and hardware consulting services http://consulting.zylin.com ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 23:52 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Zach Welchz...@superlucidity.net 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 Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:02 +, Photo Leecher wrote: Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent in sales of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware? Gotta love the impartiality here... Screw impartiality. If this should be a meritocracy, then Øyvind has contributed enough to the community as a whole to earn his vote. How much have you contributed, again? How many patches is that? The exception could be allowed now and then removed later once the supposed new solutions are done and working. With the exception, there is no motive for anyone to work on a fix. See how much activity has come to life, once the issue became a problem? This is a good thing for open source. Cheers, Zach ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:10 +, Photo Leecher wrote: Guess what, OpenOCD wasn't started so YOU can get paid. I do not expect any work to come my way from this. If you don't like the way OpenOCD is managed, get out. Ditto. Oh, wait... who has been helping manage things here? Go away. Stop trolling. Cheers, Zach ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
If one looks at his commits, he checked in a lot of BROKEN STUFF. Nice meritocracy there! So impartiality is only when it suits you eh? I don't have to have submitted any patch to see that there are huge and biased flaws in this argument. Both Oyvind and you have bigger profitable hidden agendas than everyone else in the latest threads. Therefore, don't be surprised if people nit pick on your lame attitudes towards some things and not so on others. It has to be the same standards for both. Not one for you and your money cronnies, and one for the users who actually use the stuff. From: Zach Welch z...@superlucidity.net To: Photo Leecher photoleec...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 23:21:05 Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:02 +, Photo Leecher wrote: Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent in sales of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware? Gotta love the impartiality here... Screw impartiality. If this should be a meritocracy, then Øyvind has contributed enough to the community as a whole to earn his vote. How much have you contributed, again? How many patches is that? The exception could be allowed now and then removed later once the supposed new solutions are done and working. With the exception, there is no motive for anyone to work on a fix. See how much activity has come to life, once the issue became a problem? This is a good thing for open source. Cheers, Zach ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
You certainly weren't the only one, yet you act you are the ONLY one that matters. You have taken over this project like no one else before. No one has ever elected you as the supreme commander of the elite OpenOCD club. I don't care about who's managing what, I just find it hypocritical how you are managing your side of OpenOCD. As for trolling, one only has to read several of your posts to see who's the biggest troll. *YOU*. From: Zach Welch z...@superlucidity.net To: Photo Leecher photoleec...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 23:22:16 Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:10 +, Photo Leecher wrote: Guess what, OpenOCD wasn't started so YOU can get paid. I do not expect any work to come my way from this. If you don't like the way OpenOCD is managed, get out. Ditto. Oh, wait... who has been helping manage things here? Go away. Stop trolling. Cheers, Zach ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:10 +, Photo Leecher wrote: Guess what, OpenOCD wasn't started so YOU can get paid. If you don't like the way OpenOCD is managed, get out. You're quite an asswipe. Lets keep it civil here. In GPL Free means freedom, not no costs ever. You can develop your own changes to the code, costing you time or you can hire someone to make change costing you money Many people make a living developing open source code, and those changes are also available for others to use tom ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:02 +, Photo Leecher wrote: Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent in sales of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware? Gotta love the impartiality here... The exception could be allowed now and then removed later once the supposed new solutions are done and working. A Real exception once added can not be removed. tom ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
Oh really? So one can no longer remove code that uses FTDI2xx in a newer revision/version and remove it from the license? You should get yourself a lawyer... That will be the day when one is not allowed to DELETE CODE. Oh dear From: Thomas A. Moulton t...@moulton.us To: Photo Leecher photoleec...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 23:35:26 Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:02 +, Photo Leecher wrote: Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent in sales of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware? Gotta love the impartiality here... The exception could be allowed now and then removed later once the supposed new solutions are done and working. A Real exception once added can not be removed. tom ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Jun 23, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Zach Welch wrote: On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 21:57 +0100, Spencer Oliver wrote: [snip] GPL is important, but i do not understand people's objections to adding an exception - who exactly is this hurting? Would you like to kick me in the nuts, while saying things like this? The effect would feel little different. Such exceptions hurt professional software developers that want to make a living developing free and open source software -- like me. I think they hurt the entire free and open source software movements, actually. From an economic standpoint, your contributions to an open source project gain you no pay and cost you time. That cost is sunk. Regardless of if a distribution is free (as in price) or for pay, you have already invested time that you received no compensation for. The claims that an license exception or commercial distribution will impact your mortgage or ability to make a living is false. You just seem to have a problem with someone else profiting from your free contribution regardless of what they have done to justify their price. -- Rick Altherr kc8...@kc8apf.net He said he hadn't had a byte in three days. I had a short, so I split it with him. -- Unsigned smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
Where does it say that you cannot revoke an exception in a new version/revision? That doesn't make sense??? More reasons for any serious projects to steer clear from GPL and go with some other license. GPL, Gray_area Public License, where nobody can ever be sure of anything because the language is so confusing and abstract. From: Magnus Lundin lun...@mlu.mine.nu To: Photo Leecher photoleec...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 23:41:56 Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License Photo Leecher wrote: Oh really? So one can no longer remove code that uses FTDI2xx in a newer revision/version and remove it from the license? You should get yourself a lawyer... That will be the day when one is not allowed to DELETE CODE. Cool it crazy wont build support. The code can of course be removed, but the legal exception once granted cannot be easily revoked. /M ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
Photo Leecher wrote: Where does it say that you cannot revoke an exception in a new version/revision? That doesn't make sense??? Sure But it only applies to new code since last release when other rights were granted. This is NOT a GPL problem, it applies anytime you give somebody a time limited licence to anything. And this goes for all FOSS licences. And all other valid licenses, open/free/commercial or whatever /M ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:37 +, Photo Leecher wrote: Oh really? So one can no longer remove code that uses FTDI2xx in a newer revision/version and remove it from the license? You should get yourself a lawyer... That will be the day when one is not allowed to DELETE CODE. Oh dear Well, you would have a hard time deleting the code from my computer and I would still be able to distribute it, so not it can not be totally removed. tom ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
Your copy would have the exception because you got revision X. Revision X+1 would not, and therefore you wouldn't be able to distribute FTDI2XX any longer as part of = X+1. People who want to keep revision X 5 years later can do so, but would no longer get the latest-and-greatest code. From: Thomas A. Moulton t...@moulton.us To: Photo Leecher photoleec...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 23:54:55 Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:37 +, Photo Leecher wrote: Oh really? So one can no longer remove code that uses FTDI2xx in a newer revision/version and remove it from the license? You should get yourself a lawyer... That will be the day when one is not allowed to DELETE CODE. Oh dear Well, you would have a hard time deleting the code from my computer and I would still be able to distribute it, so not it can not be totally removed. tom ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
Photo Leecher wrote: Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent in sales of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware? Gotta love the impartiality here... The exception could be allowed now and then removed later once the supposed new solutions are done and working. So, Mr. anonymous, what have you contributed to OpenOCD? Oyvind has contributed substantial parts that made OpenOCD much more useful (for example fixing IXP420 targets, which was very important for me), and he did not take any money for it, so he definitely deserves a vote (apart from the legal side, which means he holds part of the copyright and we can't change the license for the current version without him, like it or not). What have you contributed to OpenOCD? Why should we listen to *your* demands? cu Michael ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 15:45 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote: On Jun 23, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Zach Welch wrote: On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 21:57 +0100, Spencer Oliver wrote: [snip] GPL is important, but i do not understand people's objections to adding an exception - who exactly is this hurting? Would you like to kick me in the nuts, while saying things like this? The effect would feel little different. Such exceptions hurt professional software developers that want to make a living developing free and open source software -- like me. I think they hurt the entire free and open source software movements, actually. From an economic standpoint, your contributions to an open source project gain you no pay and cost you time. That cost is sunk. Regardless of if a distribution is free (as in price) or for pay, you have already invested time that you received no compensation for. The claims that an license exception or commercial distribution will impact your mortgage or ability to make a living is false. You just seem to have a problem with someone else profiting from your free contribution regardless of what they have done to justify their price. Actually, I did not claim here that I myself am being hurt, merely that all of professional peers like me suffer from these exceptions because they provide a disincentive for the community to demand open solutions. 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). Since I did not mention my mortgage in this message, you are clearly reading all messages and extrapolating beyond the words that you have on the page in front of you. Please allow for the fact that language is not sufficiently precise to allow such extrapolations to be accurate. I _expect_ others to profit from my work -- under the terms of the GPL. The GPL has been established to have been the only and exclusive license of the OpenOCD project, because the exceptions were never written down! 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. I have offered my services repeatedly to those who need it to help resolve this situation with technical solutions. Instead, I am being asked to give up my GPL copyright claims on the work that I have done, without any compensation. Are you kidding me? Under what obligation am I required to help others that project from violating the GPL license? Cheers, Zach ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 00:44 +0200, Michael Schwingen wrote: Photo Leecher wrote: Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent in sales of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware? Gotta love the impartiality here... The exception could be allowed now and then removed later once the supposed new solutions are done and working. So, Mr. anonymous, what have you contributed to OpenOCD? Oyvind has contributed substantial parts that made OpenOCD much more useful (for example fixing IXP420 targets, which was very important for me), and he did not take any money for it, so he definitely deserves a vote (apart from the legal side, which means he holds part of the copyright and we can't change the license for the current version without him, like it or not). What have you contributed to OpenOCD? Why should we listen to *your* demands? Please stop feeding this troll. :) Cheers, Zach ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
Tell me where I have made any demands??? Nice fail, Herr TROLL. From: Michael Schwingen rincew...@discworld.dascon.de To: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 23:44:15 Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License Photo Leecher wrote: Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent in sales of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware? Gotta love the impartiality here... The exception could be allowed now and then removed later once the supposed new solutions are done and working. So, Mr. anonymous, what have you contributed to OpenOCD? Oyvind has contributed substantial parts that made OpenOCD much more useful (for example fixing IXP420 targets, which was very important for me), and he did not take any money for it, so he definitely deserves a vote (apart from the legal side, which means he holds part of the copyright and we can't change the license for the current version without him, like it or not). What have you contributed to OpenOCD? Why should we listen to *your* demands? cu Michael ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Magnus Lundin wrote: The protocol to talk to MPSSE is well known/open (they do praise developers of open alternatives on thier web site) , Though for the record ... the bitbang protocol for FT232 (not FT2232) is neither well-known nor open. If that were open, it would be possible to implement JTAG on other FTDI chips. Less efficiently, to be sure, but with easier 1.8V compatibility. - Dave ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
Thomas A. Moulton a écrit : On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:02 +, Photo Leecher wrote: The exception could be allowed now and then removed later once the supposed new solutions are done and working. A Real exception once added can not be removed. tom Agreed! Also, I think that the discussion has turned a bit too ugly. All the people who have spent efforts on the project deserve some respect. We can disagree without insulting each other. Michel -- Tired of Microsoft's rebootive multitasking? then it's time to upgrade to Linux. http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote: We all want openocd to be open - I just do not see why adding an exception to ftd2xx is opening any floodgates for other vendors. I have not seen a specific proposal for new license so I can't really comment. That's a good point. Likewise, we've not seen a complete list of copyright holders who would need to agree to that proposed change. Do you want to list ftd2xx specifically when there are technical solutions to that specific problem proposed that could be effectuated *long* before a license change could be made? Hey, another Fine Point. ... wait. Do you mean to say that instead of flaming on this list, some folk could actually have been doing PRODUCTIVE work to solve the problem? Say it ain't so!! ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Photo Leecher wrote: Where does it say that you cannot revoke an exception in a new version/revision? It doesn't... It's the same issue as any re-licensing. You can do it given agreement among all copyright holders. And it won't invalidate older source snapshots, with the previous license. ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
David Brownell wrote: On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Magnus Lundin wrote: The protocol to talk to MPSSE is well known/open (they do praise developers of open alternatives on thier web site) , Though for the record ... the bitbang protocol for FT232 (not FT2232) is neither well-known nor open. If that were open, it would be possible to implement JTAG on other FTDI chips. Less efficiently, to be sure, but with easier 1.8V compatibility. - Dave I call BS. Do you know JTAG over FT232 ? Somer folks called you USB expert. The protocols available for FT232 are well published, it is not hard but unpleasant to implement JTAG on them, that is what interfaces like the Altera USB Blaster does. But JTAG over MPSSE is soo much nicer that nobody who has worked with this wants to go back to FT232 (without the extra 2), it is not a tecnical problem it is just a PITA. /M ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
I'm sure that once a decent replacement is made available, it would be much much easier to have every (C) holder agree on removing FTDI2xx??? Many people already have older illegal snapshots, so that's hardly a problem. As OpenOCD gets more mature, people would want to upgrade and stop using the old versions (assuming the replacement is available). From: David Brownell davi...@pacbell.net To: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de Cc: Photo Leecher photoleec...@yahoo.co.uk Sent: Wednesday, 24 June, 2009 0:22:54 Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Photo Leecher wrote: Where does it say that you cannot revoke an exception in a new version/revision? It doesn't... It's the same issue as any re-licensing. You can do it given agreement among all copyright holders. And it won't invalidate older source snapshots, with the previous license. ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
LMAO That could be said for a lot of the recent messages on this list! A very LOW signal to Noise ratio Lets start talking about solutions tom On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 23:27 +, Photo Leecher wrote: People can already do what you say... They can merge+build the latest and use FTDI2xx. Amount of information: 0 __ From: Thomas A. Moulton t...@moulton.us To: Photo Leecher photoleec...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de Sent: Wednesday, 24 June, 2009 0:24:09 Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:59 +, Photo Leecher wrote: Your copy would have the exception because you got revision X. Revision X+1 would not, and therefore you wouldn't be able to distribute FTDI2XX any longer as part of = X+1. People who want to keep revision X 5 years later can do so, but would no longer get the latest-and-greatest code. I could merge any patches I wanted to and release... Like I said it would be complex.. That was my only point tom ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Magnus Lundin wrote: Though for the record ... the bitbang protocol for FT232 (not FT2232) is neither well-known nor open. If that were open, it would be possible to implement JTAG on other FTDI chips. Less efficiently, to be sure, but with easier 1.8V compatibility. - Dave I call BS. Do you know JTAG over FT232 ? Somer folks called you USB expert. I've had to do SPI over FT232 and that's where I noticed that the documentation was seriously lacking. You can view JTAG as a combination of: (a) state transitions driven by TMS + TCK (b) SPI (TMS == chipselect) in the xRSHIFT states The protocols available for FT232 are well published, it is not hard but unpleasant to implement JTAG on them, that is what interfaces like the Altera USB Blaster does. If they are well published that's news to me. I found significant holes. One example is just the differences between the FT232B and FT232R revisions. I think it was winter 2006-2007 where I did that; maybe docs have been fixed since then. The Official Answer from FTDI was to use D2XX library. Any well published docs related to that library, not to commands at the chip level. I suppose I could have stuck a USB sniffer on the wire and watched what their library did with each API call. The need for that level work highlights the doc holes But JTAG over MPSSE is soo much nicer that nobody who has worked with this wants to go back to FT232 (without the extra 2), it is not a tecnical problem it is just a PITA. Agreed, JTAG over MPSSE is better. And a part of that is that the docs actually cover all the registers and commands you can issue, so you're not left guessing. - Dave ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
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 _expect_ others to profit from my work -- under the terms of the GPL. The GPL has been established to have been the only and exclusive license of the OpenOCD project, because the exceptions were never written down! I've never contended that there was an exception, implied or otherwise. I _do_ contend that I refuse to do anything but strictly enforce my view of the GPL does not extrapolate to the community being required to follow such a decision. So next time you want to write that you won't agree to an alternate interpretation, realize that it ultimately doesn't matter. Your work can be replaced and your copyrights in the project removed. It is up to the community, not a single copyright holder, to decide. 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. 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. 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. 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. Cheers, Zach -- Rick Altherr kc8...@kc8apf.net He said he hadn't had a byte in three days. I had a short, so I split it with him. -- Unsigned smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
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. ;) I _expect_ others to profit from my work -- under the terms of the GPL. The GPL has been established to have been the only and exclusive license of the OpenOCD project, because the exceptions were never written down! I've never contended that there was an exception, implied or otherwise. I _do_ contend that I refuse to do anything but strictly enforce my view of the GPL does not extrapolate to the community being required to follow such a decision. So next time you want to write that you won't agree to an alternate interpretation, realize that it ultimately doesn't matter. Your work can be replaced and your copyrights in the project removed. It is up to the community, not a single copyright holder, to decide. The community is free to make the decision, true enough. That would be entertaining too. Sad, but amusing. 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? 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? 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. 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
Re: [Openocd-development] License
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. 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. 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. 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
Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Rick Altherr wrote: 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. I actually saw an msi file on the Berlios download page. Which I believe is one flavor of MS-Windows installer. 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. That sounds like it's worth doing ... one could do more later too. ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] License
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
