On 11.10.21 11:49, David Brown wrote: > The licencing for OpenOCD, and how strictly it is applied, is entirely > up to the people who write the software. So your two cents are worth > a great deal more than my two cents here. > > However, you should be aware that while this is clearly not a mere > "bureaucratic issue" for /you/, it /is/ that minor to the great > majority of end-users. Most software end-users equate "GPL" with > "zero cost", and a depressingly large proportion of software > developers equate "GPL" with "zero cost, and you get the source and > can do what you like with it".
It gets major even for end-users as soon as it limits the distribution of pre-compiled binaries, e.g. if pre-compiled Windows versions of OpenOCD do not support these adapters. cu Michael
