On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 09:46 +0200, Nico Coesel wrote: > > -----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!).
No, it is about the GPL's design: to force developers to produce open solutions. No one is being forced to pay, but those who cannot develop have no other means at their disposal than diplomacy or bribery. ;) I do not care who does this work (or whether they are paid), but it seems rather clear that it needs to be done. I am ready and willing. > > 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. right you can't suddenly revoke. Are you willing to defend this position in court? Do you think that others should take this assertion at face value? There are reason contracts are written down, and this kind of crap argument sums them up. I am really getting frustrated by the claim that "everyone knew" about the exception. I most certainly did not, and you will have an impossible case proving that I accepted these terms in face of the in-tree copy of the unadulterated GPL. Those are the terms I accepted, without any exceptions. > 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 :-))) I chose #1, because #2 is not strictly possible. And because it is the Right Thing To Do for the community, in strategic sense of those words. Now, I cannot be said to be a GPL fundamentalist with such a position, and I have always seen the value of such solutions. This is not new. Michael Fischer just contacted me off-list about this specific solution, which he sees as the best way to move forward out of this mess. I will help him, because of his proactive willingness to move forward on these issues in a constructive manner. Who else deserves such consideration? Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
