> > It's clear to me, that many here have forgotten the main IDEA. The IDEA > behind OpenOCD was to provide a free and open tool for ARM developers > that could be used with FT2232-based JTAGs. Now some think the idea is > to be Uber-GPL-we-don't-care-for-the-users. > > This is an important sentence. I can not understand why It is not possible to make, like it is in official right. In the past the driver exisited trivial in the binary. It was no problem, now somebody found this violation outside any code. It would better nobody had found this violation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception Is is like in UNO all have a veto right und nothing will be better, as long as the veto exists. A voting is not possible. I see only one way for a relicense. Domenic Rath relicence his code and all derived code followed. Some critical codewriters are not willing at the moment to follow. It can require long time or will never ready. The critical persons can make an offer and not only "no". I had read one is in contact with an attorney. The spirt of openocd is now the question and not the meaning of some hardliners. In the beginning ot this discussion it looked like it exists a possibility. Regards Rene Doss _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
