On Jun 23, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 12:59 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote:On Jun 23, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Zach Welch wrote:On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 20:20 +0200, Freddie Chopin wrote: [snip]Why do you consider it OK to ignore a license just because it inconveniences you? Do you hold the same view regarding things you create?Why do you consider it OK to overinterpret the license just because it inconveniences you? In things I create I take the pragmatic view - whensomething is given for free (like the ftd2xx.dll library) than it ismeant to be used, for free - I'm not creating artificial problems that would prevent me to use that "something".[snip]Why do you consider it OK to ignore what I and other contributors aresaying about the license?Because you are only a fraction of the community and the community as a whole decides.Wrong. A single copyright holder can prevent changes to the license. Hi. That's me.
Your changes can be reverted and your copyrighted code removed. You are a single copyright holder and cannot speak for the entire community. Nor can you prevent the community from doing anything.
Why do you feel it necessary to disrespect our copyright claims?I don't see how he is. Now, the two interpretations of the license allow slightly different uses, but that isn't disrespect, it's a difference of opinion. One that can't be settled by restating each other's side. There needs to be discussion or an actual legal analysis that shows which interpretation is correct.Do you dispute my claims to some fraction of the copyrights to OpenOCD?
Not at all.
Do you believe that fraction to be sufficient to give me legal standing?
Certainly, as long as the code you claim copyright on is still part of the source tree. That doesn't mean that your interpretation of the license has any standing, however. You can certainly choose to take it to a court and see which interpretation wins.
I believe that I can make such claims.
You can claim anything you want, but until an interpretation is shown to be "correct" by having it sided with in court, it is not definitive.
If we interpret it thusly, why do you think that your interpretation should be considered more valid than ours view? What if I told you that my interpretation is based in part on having paid an attorney to counsel me in such nuances? Would that matter?Probably, but so far, we've seen nothing but conjecture from both sides.True. It would take a court battle to find out anything certain here.You are being disrespectful to contributors that have made this decision; it is theirs to make and theirs alone.No, the decision was to distribute under the GPL, not a specific interpretation of the GPL. If it turns out that Freddie's interpretation has more legal ground, then you are stuck with complying. That also isn't being disrespectful. It's being true to the letter of the license.I feel fairly confident that I understand these terms of the GPL.In that way, there isno doubt that you _are_ creating problems by beating this dead horse.There is only no doubt to you and a few others. This isn't a dead horse to the community. It's a discussion where a few people want their way and refuse to hold discussion about alternatives.From the perspective of my contributions, it is dead.What will it take to get you and others to drop this issue?An actual resolution by the community and not a triumvirate declaration based on their interpretation of the license.I think you have a misunderstanding about copyright law.
No, actually I'm quite familiar with it. You seem to be under the misunderstanding about copyright law's implications on a source base with many contributors. You can assert your rights on the code you claim copyright on and nothing else. Your copyright can also be nullified by replacing that code with a different implementation. Further, your rights on your code contributions do _not_ mean that you get to apply your interpretation of the license.
The community as a whole can easily decide to remove your code, replace it, and relicense. The community can also choose to follow an alternate interpretation of the license that you may not agree with. Again, you have no rights to declare which interpretation must be followed. Your rights only extend to bring a court case to decide the claims. The community must reach a resolution and individual members don't have the rights to assert that theirs must be used.
Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development-- Rick Altherr kc8...@kc8apf.net"He said he hadn't had a byte in three days. I had a short, so I splitit with him." -- Unsigned
-- Rick Altherr kc8...@kc8apf.net"He said he hadn't had a byte in three days. I had a short, so I split it with him."
-- Unsigned
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
