> But we shall not become GPL slaves, solving how to pass literal > interpretation of the license instead of pushing OpenOCD further.
GPL is our most vital line of defense against closed source target/interface support in OpenOCD. If the maintainers and contributors do not respect and follow the GPL license, then why should we expect anybody else to do so? Further we have to be rather stubborn and nit-picking about it, lest closed source target support makers are going to try to go for the loopholes... Closed source target support makes no sense to me for OpenOCD. There are plenty of excellent closed source target solutions out there, that's not OpenOCD's job/mission nor do I think that OpenOCD has anything unique to contribute in that regard. We use proprietary closed source hardware debuggers every day. Works fine! I'm all for closed source target support, but that's not what OpenOCD is about. >> That's one of the *main* reasons I got involved with OpenOCD in the first >> place. > > Actually me to, I am not for closed interfaces, and PRESTO is also open. You guys have a lot of closed source target programming support as well as OpenOCD support! Good for you! ;-) I've checked out your web site and it looks like really neat stuff. I'd get nightmares about trying to set up a complete test setup of all those combinations. > The only closed thing is ftd2xx, a hw driver wrapper with rather trivial > API which is mostly the same as OS file I/O API so the discussion about > this seems to me a bit ridiculous. It is, isn't it? Especially considering that a technical solution is forthcoming. The whole USB problem is a red herring. It will be gone long before can get around to sue anybody :-) *After* the USB problem is solved, it will be unacceptable to continue to breach GPL. The clock is ticking. Nobody can really claim to have been unaware of this. It's now time to pitch in and help solve the problem at the technical level. We want to make it perfectly clear that we *WILL* nit-pick about GPL stuff because open target/interface support is what OpenOCD is about. Closed source target support has been done to death. The point about nitpicking about GPL is to make sure that everybody understands that we really mean it when we say we want open source target support and nothing else. > Open interface to FTDI chips does not make much sense without the chip > itself, noone is going to implement a compatible silicon, that is why I > consider ftd2xx as part of the hw and why I see the discussion > pointless, bringing no real benefit to the project itself The whole USB/FTDI thing is a red herring. This is really about sticking GPL on OpenOCD for the purposes of getting open source target support. Some technical hazzle with drivers is a *small* price to pay for open source target support. -- Øyvind Harboe Embedded software and hardware consulting services http://www.zylin.com _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
