> -----Original Message----- > From: openocd-development-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:openocd- > development-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Zach Welch > Sent: woensdag 24 juni 2009 1:10 > To: Rick Altherr > Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de > Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License > > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 15:45 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote: > > > > impact your mortgage or ability to make a living is false. You just > > seem to have a problem with someone else profiting from your free > > contribution regardless of what they have done to justify their price. > > Actually, I did not claim here that I myself am being hurt, merely that > all of professional peers "like me" suffer from these exceptions because > they provide a disincentive for the community to demand open solutions.
So this is about *forcing* people/companies to pay in order to get open source projects fixed. (This is just a statement for clarification. It is not a judgement in any way!). > I have offered my services repeatedly to those who need it to help > resolve this situation with technical solutions. Instead, I am being > asked to give up my GPL copyright claims on the work that I have done, > without any compensation. Are you kidding me? Under what obligation am > I required to help others that project from violating the GPL license? I think Magnus has a good point in saying that the exception for the FTDxx is already there. Not everything needs to be in writing in order to make it legal. If you allow something long enough then you are granting an extra right you can't suddenly revoke. I can see this going two ways: 1) adding the tcp/ip / named pipes interface which will allow connection to any closed source driver 2) grant *one* single explicit exception for the FTDxx driver Pick your poison :-))) Nico Coesel _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
