Menu
▾
▴
openocd-devel
|
From: Zach W. <zw...@su...> - 2009-06-23 23:27:34
|
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 |
|
From: Øyvind H. <oyv...@zy...> - 2009-06-23 23:37:45
|
> 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). -- Øyvind Harboe Embedded software and hardware consulting services http://consulting.zylin.com |
|
From: Zach W. <zw...@su...> - 2009-06-23 23:41:07
|
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 |
|
From: Øyvind H. <oyv...@zy...> - 2009-06-23 23:52:56
|
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Zach Welch<zw...@su...> 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 |
|
From: Photo L. <pho...@ya...> - 2009-06-24 00:02:04
|
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 <oyv...@zy...> To: Zach Welch <zw...@su...> Cc: ope...@li... Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 22:52:53 Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Zach Welch<zw...@su...> 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 Ope...@li... https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development |
|
From: Thomas A. M. <to...@mo...> - 2009-06-24 00:35:30
|
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:02 +0000, 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 > |
|
From: Michel C. <mic...@gm...> - 2009-06-24 01:19:19
|
Thomas A. Moulton a écrit : > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:02 +0000, 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 |
|
From: Spencer O. <sp...@sp...> - 2009-06-24 00:07:00
|
> > 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 |
|
From: Øyvind H. <oyv...@zy...> - 2009-06-24 00:11:42
|
> 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 |
|
From: David B. <da...@pa...> - 2009-06-24 01:20:00
|
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!! |
|
From: Zach W. <zw...@su...> - 2009-06-24 00:20:32
|
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 23:52 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Zach Welch<zw...@su...> 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 |
|
From: Magnus L. <lu...@ml...> - 2009-06-23 23:38:51
|
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 |
|
From: Øyvind H. <oyv...@zy...> - 2009-06-23 23:56:20
|
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Magnus Lundin<lu...@ml...> 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 |
|
From: Spencer O. <sp...@sp...> - 2009-06-24 00:15:14
|
> > 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? Cheers Spen |
|
From: Øyvind H. <oyv...@zy...> - 2009-06-24 00:19:49
|
2009/6/24 Spencer Oliver <sp...@sp...>: > >> > 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 |
|
From: Magnus L. <lu...@ml...> - 2009-06-24 00:10:55
|
Øyvind Harboe wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Magnus Lundin<lu...@ml...> 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 |
|
From: Øyvind H. <oyv...@zy...> - 2009-06-24 00:15:25
|
2009/6/24 Magnus Lundin <lu...@ml...>: > Øyvind Harboe wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Magnus Lundin<lu...@ml...> 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 |
|
From: Øyvind H. <oyv...@zy...> - 2009-06-24 00:11:17
|
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Photo Leecher<pho...@ya...> 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 |
|
From: Photo L. <pho...@ya...> - 2009-06-24 00:15:10
|
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 <oyv...@zy...> To: Photo Leecher <pho...@ya...> Cc: ope...@li... Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 23:11:14 Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Photo Leecher<pho...@ya...> 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 |
|
From: Zach W. <zw...@su...> - 2009-06-24 00:21:08
|
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:02 +0000, 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 |
|
From: Photo L. <pho...@ya...> - 2009-06-24 00:24:41
|
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 <zw...@su...>
To: Photo Leecher <pho...@ya...>
Cc: ope...@li...
Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 23:21:05
Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:02 +0000, 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
|
|
From: Photo L. <pho...@ya...> - 2009-06-24 00:38:00
|
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 <to...@mo...>
To: Photo Leecher <pho...@ya...>
Cc: ope...@li...
Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 23:35:26
Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:02 +0000, 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
>
|
|
From: Magnus L. <lu...@ml...> - 2009-06-24 00:42:24
|
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 |
|
From: Photo L. <pho...@ya...> - 2009-06-24 00:45:43
|
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 <lu...@ml...>
To: Photo Leecher <pho...@ya...>
Cc: ope...@li...
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
|
|
From: Magnus L. <lu...@ml...> - 2009-06-24 00:52:10
|
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 |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X