On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 00:12 +0200, Ronald Vanschoren wrote: > > This is _very_ apt observation, and one I almost forgot myself. > > > Thanks ;-) > > As (I think) you say here, the Linux kernel module scenario does not > > affect the legality of a loadable module in the same user-space process > > as OpenOCD. The module still violates the GPL when distributed, since > > it would be derived in part from the type and API definitions provided > > by the driver interface header files. Thus, binaries of the driver > > module could not be distributed. > > > The situation with Linux is a little more gray and I was kinda hoping > nobody would notice. Some API from Linux is outside GPL (like > systemcalls and some other). This is probably how NVIDIA makes a full > closed source kernel module. > But even if it wasn't so, only the translation layer between Linux API > and closed source library has to be released. The translation layer is > obviously derived work, but anything past that obviously is not. > This is basically the same OpenOCD would do: release everything up to > FTD2XX API. > > However, I have mentioned that modular drivers could allow a build-kit > > to only produce that single driver from source, though the "build" > > requirements still get out of control. The latest "link-kit" idea would > > be perfect for this though! Modular drivers are still a Good Thing. > > > Link-kit is definitely better then build-kit, but what are we doing > here? Dynamic linking is also a "link-kit". In my interpretation of GPL, > there is nothing illegal to distributing an OpenOCD binary that _CAN_ > link to FTD2XX but doesn't require it. We (OpenOCD community) would not > distribute FTD2XX ourselves, but point users to the FTDI download page > and say "if you download the DLL and put it in the OpenOCD directory, > something magic could happen". I'm assuming here it's not legal to > distribute FTD2xx, I don't know about that as I don't know what license > it's available under. > It's all gray here, but won't somebody please think of the chil^H^H^H^H > users. We must assume they are not very much into building/linking.
Arg. The link kit suffers from the same deficiencies: what are distributed inside the ccache? The _binary_ object files. Mega-Duh. In hindsight, this particular solution is just "unlinked binary" distribution; it should be considered DOA. I probably missed that because I'm going on 26+ hours since sleeping. Sorry. > As you might have noticed I'm one of the "loose" people regarding this > GPL thing, but on the other hand I'm not too keen on binary modular > drivers. At least the translation layer should be GPL'd and the binary > part should be publicly available. This opens a lot of doors, but maybe > some we don't want to open... Someone should present a complete design document. ;) Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
