Menu
▾
▴
openocd-devel
|
From: Dominic <Dom...@gm...> - 2009-06-23 22:16:27
|
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. 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) 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. Regards, Dominic |
|
From: Spencer O. <sp...@sp...> - 2009-06-23 22:57:15
|
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 |
|
From: Zach W. <zw...@su...> - 2009-06-24 00:05:46
|
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 |
|
From: Rick A. <kc...@kc...> - 2009-06-24 00:45:05
Attachments:
smime.p7s
|
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 kc...@kc... "He said he hadn't had a byte in three days. I had a short, so I split it with him." -- Unsigned |
|
From: Zach W. <zw...@su...> - 2009-06-24 01:09:42
|
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 |
|
From: Nico C. <nc...@DE...> - 2009-06-24 09:47:41
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: ope...@li... [mailto:openocd- > dev...@li...] On Behalf Of Zach Welch > Sent: woensdag 24 juni 2009 1:10 > To: Rick Altherr > Cc: ope...@li... > 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 |
|
From: Zach W. <zw...@su...> - 2009-06-24 10:26:55
|
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 09:46 +0200, Nico Coesel wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ope...@li... [mailto:openocd- > > dev...@li...] On Behalf Of Zach Welch > > Sent: woensdag 24 juni 2009 1:10 > > To: Rick Altherr > > Cc: ope...@li... > > 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 |
|
From: Nico C. <nc...@DE...> - 2009-06-24 10:56:13
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: Zach Welch [mailto:zw...@su...] > Sent: woensdag 24 juni 2009 10:27 > To: Nico Coesel > Cc: ope...@li... > 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. > 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. Nico Coesel |
|
From: Zach W. <zw...@su...> - 2009-06-24 11:09:53
|
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 10:52 +0200, Nico Coesel wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Zach Welch [mailto:zw...@su...] > > Sent: woensdag 24 juni 2009 10:27 > > To: Nico Coesel > > Cc: ope...@li... > > 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 |
|
From: Michel C. <mic...@gm...> - 2009-06-25 01:35:44
|
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 |
|
From: Photo L. <pho...@ya...> - 2009-06-24 00:10:37
|
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 <zw...@su...> To: Spencer Oliver <sp...@sp...> Cc: ope...@li... 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 Ope...@li... https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development |
|
From: Thomas A. M. <to...@mo...> - 2009-06-24 00:34:33
|
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:10 +0000, 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 > |
|
From: David B. <da...@pa...> - 2009-06-24 01:13:02
|
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Thomas A. Moulton wrote: > Lets keep it civil here. But Tom ... with a name like "Photo Leecher", how could you expect that person to be anything other than a leech on *any* community? :) I hate to say it but a troll community seems to have grown on this ist. |
|
From: Michel C. <mic...@gm...> - 2009-06-24 01:37:26
|
David Brownell a écrit : > On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Thomas A. Moulton wrote: > >> Lets keep it civil here. >> > > But Tom ... with a name like "Photo Leecher", > how could you expect that person to be anything > other than a leech on *any* community? :) > > > I hate to say it but a troll community seems > to have grown on this ist. > He must be in his PMS mood -- Tired of Microsoft's rebootive multitasking? then it's time to upgrade to Linux. http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal |
|
From: Zach W. <zw...@su...> - 2009-06-24 00:22:18
|
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:10 +0000, 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 |
|
From: Photo L. <pho...@ya...> - 2009-06-24 00:28:05
|
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 <zw...@su...>
To: Photo Leecher <pho...@ya...>
Cc: ope...@li...
Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 23:22:16
Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:10 +0000, 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
|
|
From: Rick A. <kc...@kc...> - 2009-06-24 02:07:33
Attachments:
smime.p7s
|
> 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 |
|
From: Zach W. <zw...@su...> - 2009-06-24 02:54:00
|
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 |
|
From: Rick A. <kc...@kc...> - 2009-06-24 03:39:38
Attachments:
smime.p7s
|
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 change of licensing wouldn't constitute giving up those claims either. >>> 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. > There has been lots of discussion about the spectrum of options available to the community. Those are not mandates. Those are not requests for immediate action. They are discussion to determine the proper resolution. Take a step back and look at the discussions. Nowhere has anyone asked or requested that anyone else give up their claims to copyright or to change the license. There is just the presentation of possible solutions for evaluation by the community. > 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? > There are other prominent open-source projects that have provided exceptions to the GPL such as GCC. That didn't undermine the larger free software community. We should also be clear that you are referring to the free software community that supports the GPL. There are plenty of other free software communities that prefer other licenses that are in many ways more free for both developers and users. Would an exception for FTDI upset Stallman? Probably. Would it undermine the communities that support the BSD license or enter directly into the public domain? Not a bit. Personally I find the GPL to be too far reaching and limiting to the developers and the users. I'm not going to elaborate since that is far from the point of this discussion. I do respect that OpenOCD is currently licensed under the pure GPL. I also acknowledge that this makes linkage to the D2XX library problematic for distribution. The community (or at least the copyright holders) need to come to a consensus on how to resolve this and implement it. Until that happens, discussion on possible ways to resolve it are completely appropriate for this list. I'm firmly against any individuals attempting to limit that discussion on the basis that they don't agree with certain options. Just because GPL- compliant options have been suggested does _not_ mean that the community is limited to choosing from them. > 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. > 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. > 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 |
|
From: David B. <da...@pa...> - 2009-06-24 05:05:56
|
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. |
|
From: Zach W. <zw...@su...> - 2009-06-24 05:15:04
|
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 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. NO! It would be GPL if I was to produce it without any help from the community, without the support of the vendors that should have paid to implement such support years ago. I someone would want to pay me for these efforts, then I would release it under more liberal terms. This is simple capitalism. And with _that_ remark, I really desperately want to drop the "is that wrong?" line of query.... :) I hate it, but what other viable option do I have, Comrade? Oh, no... please do not answer that either!!! That requires a full keg to discuss properly. > >>> 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 change of licensing wouldn't constitute giving up those claims > either. It has been resolved that I will not change the license on the trunk. At this point, Øyvind does not want to see the license changed, which means any change -- today -- would be prior to r214. By this evidence, the repository and project are and will continue to be GPL. You can't change it, because he will not let you -- without _concrete_ evidence about why. Was this ambiguous in some way that I am not seeing? All of this "discussion" will be endless, without an actual legal clause to add to the license. At which point, you may or may not convince other copyright holders to agree to change. None of that activity needs to be distracting the community from developing actual solutions that will solve the technical problems. I would prefer for all such threads to go off-list. Organize such a coup somewhere else. Unless the community wants to waste my donated time answering e-mails, the discussion is pointless unless someone wants to talk seriously about a fork. Fork us or don't, but this discussion is wasting countless hours of my time. I would much rather actually be working on constructive solutions to our newly discovered problems. > >>> 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. > > > > There has been lots of discussion about the spectrum of options > available to the community. Those are not mandates. Those are not > requests for immediate action. They are discussion to determine the > proper resolution. Take a step back and look at the discussions. > Nowhere has anyone asked or requested that anyone else give up their > claims to copyright or to change the license. There is just the > presentation of possible solutions for evaluation by the community. I suppose you are right; however, your last message effectively offered removal all of my contributions from the repository as a potential option to consider. You do not see that in and of itself as an attempt to see that I lose my copyrights? Please realize that you can't really do that; I would lead the branch that would remain GPL-compatible -- while the other would not. The fork could not legally take any changes from the GPL repository, because it would be imposing additional restrictions (which are prohibited by the terms of the GPL, right?). Furthermore, have you received any hate mail? You can see what has been directed at me on the list. I am sorry this debate rages on, without a lot of strong confidence in contrary opinions. I stand by what I say, though every individual should get their own legal advice. Never trust anything you say on a mailing list, even from me. Or do. Whatever. > > 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? > > > > There are other prominent open-source projects that have provided > exceptions to the GPL such as GCC. That didn't undermine the larger > free software community. We should also be clear that you are > referring to the free software community that supports the GPL. There > are plenty of other free software communities that prefer other > licenses that are in many ways more free for both developers and > users. Would an exception for FTDI upset Stallman? Probably. Would > it undermine the communities that support the BSD license or enter > directly into the public domain? Not a bit. Personally I find the > GPL to be too far reaching and limiting to the developers and the > users. I'm not going to elaborate since that is far from the point of > this discussion. Sure. All great ideas, but you will find me too much like Stallman in these examples. My argument derives solely from the fact that open source alternatives exist. A proprietary driver is not the only solution, and options how been show to allow proprietary drivers via build kits or sockets. The lack of an exception does not prevent the operation or development of these devices, in any respect. So even a GPL implementation of a socket interface would create a _enormous_ opportunity for proprietary interfaces, compared to the non-existent possibility today. > I do respect that OpenOCD is currently licensed under the pure GPL. I > also acknowledge that this makes linkage to the D2XX library > problematic for distribution. The community (or at least the > copyright holders) need to come to a consensus on how to resolve this > and implement it. Until that happens, discussion on possible ways to > resolve it are completely appropriate for this list. I'm firmly > against any individuals attempting to limit that discussion on the > basis that they don't agree with certain options. Just because GPL- > compliant options have been suggested does _not_ mean that the > community is limited to choosing from them. As I said, it has been resolved -- unless Dominic will lead a fork from pre-r214 (or thereabouts), or someone provides suitable legalese that convinces Mr. Harboe to change the license for some more revisions. Again, I do not think there is any continued value "discussing" licensing issues on the list, because they will require serious effort that I do not believe anyone actually intends to execute in the face of the alternative solutions. I really feel sorry for those who feel the legal solution is necessary, when a good engineer should be able to produce the required "workaround" in fairly short order -- using the ideas put through the list to date. If anyone _does_ intend to pursue the legal actions require to change the license for OpenOCD, then I want to hear about it soon. I will not be happy if the community gets torn apart again later, when such language has become available. > > 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. > > > > 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. Technically, I agree. We are not required to do anything. BUT... I believe distributors would be better off having a solution for this, don't you think? I am trying very hard to make compliance acceptable for the user community, since I am pushing so hard to see full GPL compliance. I am not asking for anything more than what I expected -- and should have been expected, legally speaking -- from members of this community from the very beginning. The most immediate solution would be a build kit. One contributor has the expressed his intention to provide such a tool. Cheers, Zach |
|
From: Zach W. <zw...@su...> - 2009-06-24 13:41:40
|
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 |
|
From: Øyvind H. <oyv...@zy...> - 2009-06-24 14:09:01
|
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 |
|
From: Zach W. <zw...@su...> - 2009-06-24 14:47:12
|
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 |
|
From: Øyvind H. <oyv...@zy...> - 2009-06-23 23:22:08
|
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 |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X