Re: [Openocd-development] License

[Rick A. <kc...@kc...>]

> 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
kc...@kc...

"He said he hadn't had a byte in three days. I had a short, so I split  
it with him."
  -- Unsigned