Hi David, Am 11.10.21 um 11:49 schrieb David Brown: > On 10/10/2021 22:24, Oleksij Rempel wrote: >> Am 09.10.21 um 13:13 schrieb David Brown: ... >> Here are my two cents. I'm open source developer. I do it, because I care >> about my freedom. I prefer >> to give my personal time to make great GPLed software. I do not do EULA or >> BSD, my choice is GPL. I >> do not use Windows or Mac. >> >> So, why developers use GPL? Well, mostly to tell in-officially "fuck you, >> closed source world!". >> >> P&E Micro made a decision and make closed HW + software. If you, as user >> say; i like this HW, but i >> do not like this software, so i'll pay this company for HW and SW (yes, you >> pay for both), and hope >> some developer will make me great soft for free... Do it sounds any how >> sane? >> If you do not like the software of this company, why do you pay for it? The >> only feedback working by >> any company is money. If you pay for it, then every thing is great, why >> should we change anything?! >> >> So, if OpenOCD devs decided to take GPL and not BSD or LGPL, or EULA. And >> this decision was made for >> reason, it can't be just boiled down to "bureaucratic issue". The choice of >> GPL is a clear message: >> "we do not like DLLs!" >> > > Hi Oleksij, > > That's fine, and I fully respect that viewpoint. > > And of course we can all agree that the ideal situation is for P&E to > document their protocols and > interfaces, and to release their libraries under the GPL, or at least > GPL-compatible licencing. > > I am a great believer in balance. I think everyone has to find a balance > between what they see as > important principles and what they see as pragmatic and practical - because > we don't live in a > perfect world. And I think software projects need such balance in the people > involved - they need > some that are committed to principles of freedom and openness, and others > that are willing to find > compromises for the good of the whole project. And I think the software > world needs a balance > between projects that are uncompromising, and projects that are willing to be > more flexible. > > There is no doubt that without people and projects which stick to their > principles no matter what, > the principles would be eroded. We can enjoy all the benefits of Linux, gcc, > OpenOCD, etc., > precisely because of people who put software freedom first, and convenience > second. The software > world is richer, wider, safer, cheaper, and better in countless ways because > of free software. > > But there is also no doubt that this does not apply to everyone, and that is > also important. > Without people making and selling closed-source software for profit, there > would be no software world. > > > 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.
Let's see it from maintainer/reviewer point of view. We allow dll/blobs for this part of code, which is executed on the host. In this case, we should allow if for every part of OpenOCD. So, we should allow CPU specific target blobs as well. In long run, we can remove "Open" from word OpenOCD :) > 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". I work in the software industry. Yes, I know, our clients have some times this misconceptions. Usually after one year of cooperation, every one learns: open source software is expensive. Maintenance cost are high, long term support, security and so one are expensive. It cost time and money. But for our customers, opensource has priority, because it /open/. Because, as low quantity customer, it is cheaper to fix or extend functionality by our self and not request some kind of top level software vendor. Because, companies disappear, developers die or top level companies do not care about you if you production amount is less than a million per year. Only with open software, it is possible to make really-long-term products with functionality and security updates. > (That applies both to developers > who /use/ GPL'ed software, and developers who release their own software > under the GPL. Yes, I have > had developers tell me they released their library code under the GPL so that > people could use the > code freely in their own code without concern for licenses or copyright.) > > > The OpenOCD developers get to make the decisions here. But they have to > consider the users here. The core point of open source is to solve own problem in open and reusable way. Open source is not software communism and not the wish to let every one give some thing for zero cost. We expect that user pay at least own time to learn things. If someone is using it for zero cost, great :) Open source, at least for me, is the way to develop things. It is open way. And it cost me or my customer time or money. > Will more people be able to use OpenOCD if they figure out a way to > communicate with P&E hardware? yes, windows users with this HW will have some short term advantage. > Will existing OpenOCD users be able to get more out of the software? Most probably not. Existing users use adapters working with OpenOCD, not choice software depending on some random part of HW. Let's compare it with normal Windows or Mac users, do this user buy HW not working with their system? Simple answer is: not. And Microsoft or Apple do not care, if some company did not made driver working with it. The only difference here is, because OpenOCD is /open/ you can change it and make it work for you. But your suggestion is to close one eye and make it less open. So, no, there is no long term benefit. > Would that involve compromises which would chase away some OpenOCD developers? What kind of compromise is expected at this point? Switch open way of development and management to half open or to closed? > Would it make it less likely that P&E Micro will > release information or GPL'ed code, which would let OpenOCD have good and > fully GPL'ed support for > the hardware? Would it make it /more/ likely? Well, you are the customer of P&E Micro, you can influence it. Many companies open for the customers feed back, tell that you or your company need OpenOCD support :) Don't forget, P&E Micro is getting your money, not my :) > There are no easy answers to those questions, and no easy way to guess the > long term or short term > consequences of any changes or decisions here. I don't expect to change > anyone's mind - I am not > trying to persuade anyone here. I am merely showing different viewpoints for > consideration. Again, > I understand and respect others' opinions and philosophies here. Sure :) I hope my point got clear. I would recommend to contact P&E Micro. As i already told, in the community, every one solves own problem. (Except of maintainers :D ..) -- Regards, Oleksij
