Re: [Openocd-development] License

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

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 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.

I have been cajoled and ridiculed for taking my present stance.  I have
been seeing a wide range of pressures from users and contributors to
give the community an exception for this library.  I reject your
assertion that no one has asked me; I claim that every new request asks
the same question of me anew.  I am very sensitive to the needs of the
community, regardless of what you may want to say to the contrary.  

However, I would be screwing a much bigger community than OpenOCD if I
were to allow an exception to the GPL.  I would be undermining the
broader free software community.  I can't live with that.  Can you?
When there are now abundance of compliant technical solutions?

I said in another thread that I now see this as a "blocker" for 0.2.0.
OpenOCD needs to provide a GPL-compliant solution for these users before
anyone produces more binary releases from the trunk w/ FTD2XX.  Each
individual distributor can decide for themselves whether or not I have
the passion and ability to pursue violators to seek such compliance.

Cheers,

Zach