Re: [Openocd-development] License

[Zach W. <zw...@su...>]

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