On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Orin Eman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Duane Ellis
>> wrote:
>>
>> > All is not rosy and perfect, "WinUSB" would require an INF file that
>> > *points* to the driver - much like the work that
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Duane Ellis
> wrote:
>
> > All is not rosy and perfect, "WinUSB" would require an INF file that
> > *points* to the driver - much like the work that Freddy is working
> > towards with a universal libusb inf fi
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 18:39 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote:
>
> On Jun 23, 2009, at 5:53 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 17:07 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote:
> >>> But since you bring it up, sunk costs actually more relate to
> >>> costs of
> >>> abandoning work that should have been p
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Duane Ellis wrote:
> SVN Commit -
>
> >> Author: duane
> >> Date: 2009-06-24 04:01:14 +0200 (Wed, 24 Jun 2009)
> >> New Revision: 2383
>
>
> OpenOCD now supports the AT91SAM3 - new CortexM3 product from Atmel.
Great! Now, where can we get these boards?
A Very Nice th
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Rick Altherr wrote:
> Technically, nothing is required from the project-side. The
> infringement happens solely at the time of distribution, not at the
> time of authoring or compilation. Since OpenOCD is only released as
> source code, the project is not directly a
Not only do I have a lack of time to work on OpenOCD, but I've been
dismayed by the arguments of late. I originally joined the project
because my Luminary eval kit wasn't working properly with OpenOCD.
Since then I've tried to help drive the foundations for better
relations between develo
SVN Commit -
>> Author: duane
>> Date: 2009-06-24 04:01:14 +0200 (Wed, 24 Jun 2009)
>> New Revision: 2383
OpenOCD now supports the AT91SAM3 - new CortexM3 product from Atmel.
Adds support for the FLASH component, includes DOCs for the new target
in the OpenOCD.texi file.
The openocd.cfg file
On Jun 23, 2009, at 5:53 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 17:07 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote:
But since you bring it up, sunk costs actually more relate to
costs of
abandoning work that should have been profitable, because conditions
change that prevent the profit from being realize
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 17:07 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote:
> > But since you bring it up, sunk costs actually more relate to costs of
> > abandoning work that should have been profitable, because conditions
> > change that prevent the profit from being realized (or bigger profits
> > becoming available
But since you bring it up, sunk costs actually more relate to costs of
abandoning work that should have been profitable, because conditions
change that prevent the profit from being realized (or bigger profits
becoming available through other means). Thus, my costs here will be
sunk if and only
2009/6/23 Freddie Chopin :
> I attach the most recent version of "universal .inf file"
>
> As you see, the devices that are "JTAG-only" should have entries for BOTH
> channels, the devices with UART/RS-232 on second channel should have only
> ONE entry.
>
> I took the liberty of adding my own JTAG,
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Magnus Lundin wrote:
> > Though for the record ... the "bitbang" protocol
> > for FT232 (not FT2232) is neither well-known nor open.
> >
> > If that were open, it would be possible to implement
> > JTAG on other FTDI chips. Less efficiently, to be
> > sure, but with easier
David Brownell a écrit :
> On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Thomas A. Moulton wrote:
>
>> Lets keep it civil here.
>>
>
> But Tom ... with a name like "Photo Leecher",
> how could you expect that person to be anything
> other than a leech on *any* community? :)
>
>
> I hate to say it but a troll c
LMAO
That could be said for a lot of the recent messages on this list!
A very LOW signal to Noise ratio
Lets start talking about solutions
tom
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 23:27 +, Photo Leecher wrote:
> People can already do what you say... They can merge+build the latest
> and use FTDI2xx.
> Am
I'm sure that once a decent replacement is made available, it would be much
much easier to have every (C) holder agree on removing FTDI2xx???
Many people already have older "illegal" snapshots, so that's hardly a problem.
As OpenOCD gets more mature, people would want to upgrade and stop using t
People can already do what you say... They can merge+build the latest and use
FTDI2xx.
Amount of information: 0
From: Thomas A. Moulton
To: Photo Leecher
Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Wednesday, 24 June, 2009 0:24:09
Subject: Re: [Openocd-de
David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Magnus Lundin wrote:
>
>> The protocol to talk to MPSSE is well known/open (they do praise
>> developers of open alternatives on thier web site) ,
>>
>
> Though for the record ... the "bitbang" protocol
> for FT232 (not FT2232) is neither we
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:59 +, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Your copy would have the exception because you got revision X.
> Revision X+1 would not, and therefore you wouldn't be able to
> distribute FTDI2XX any longer as part of >= X+1.
>
> People who want to keep revision X 5 years later can do s
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 00:55 +0200, Magnus Lundin wrote:
> Thomas A. Moulton wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 15:33 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The community as a whole can easily decide to remove your code,
> >> replace it, and relicense. The community can also choose to follow an
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Where does it say that you cannot revoke an exception
> in a new version/revision?
It doesn't... It's the same issue as any re-licensing.
You can do it given agreement among all copyright holders.
And it won't invalidate older source snapshots,
wi
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> > We all want openocd to be open - I just do not see why adding
> > an exception to ftd2xx is opening any floodgates for other vendors.
>
> I have not seen a specific proposal for new license so I can't
> really comment.
That's a good point. Likewi
Thomas A. Moulton a écrit :
> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:02 +, Photo Leecher wrote:
>
>> The exception could be allowed now and then removed later once the
>> supposed new solutions are done and working.
>>
>>
> A Real exception once added can not be removed.
>
> tom
>
Agreed!
Also, I
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Magnus Lundin wrote:
> The protocol to talk to MPSSE is well known/open (they do praise
> developers of open alternatives on thier web site) ,
Though for the record ... the "bitbang" protocol
for FT232 (not FT2232) is neither well-known nor open.
If that were open, it wo
Tell me where I have made any demands???
Nice fail, Herr TROLL.
From: Michael Schwingen
To: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 23:44:15
Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] License
Photo Leecher wrote:
> Isn't it great that you are
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Thomas A. Moulton wrote:
> Lets keep it civil here.
But Tom ... with a name like "Photo Leecher",
how could you expect that person to be anything
other than a leech on *any* community? :)
I hate to say it but a troll community seems
to have grown on this ist.
__
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 00:44 +0200, Michael Schwingen wrote:
> Photo Leecher wrote:
> > Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent
> > in sales of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware?
> > Gotta love the impartiality here...
> > The exception could be allowed now and then
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 15:45 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote:
>
> On Jun 23, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 21:57 +0100, Spencer Oliver wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> GPL is important, but i do not understand people's objections to
> >> adding an
> >> exception -
> >>>
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Magnus Lundin wrote:
> David Brownell wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Magnus Lundin wrote:
> >
> >> Zach does not speak for me. As far as I can see he and David are
> >> actively against any exception, I am not!!!
> >>
> >
> > I'm not against adding such an exc
Photo Leecher wrote:
> Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent
> in sales of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware?
> Gotta love the impartiality here...
> The exception could be allowed now and then removed later once the
> supposed new solutions are done and working
Your copy would have the exception because you got revision X.
Revision X+1 would not, and therefore you wouldn't be able to distribute
FTDI2XX any longer as part of >= X+1.
People who want to keep revision X 5 years later can do so, but would no longer
get the latest-and-greatest code.
__
In other words, you have agree with what I said.
Accept the exception now. Once a usable replacement is available, remove the
code/exception. The act of removing the code will make it "new code".
Thanks for disagreeing only to agree in the end.
From: Magnus Lu
Thomas A. Moulton wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 15:33 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote:
>
>
>> 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
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:37 +, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Oh really?
> So one can no longer remove code that uses FTDI2xx in a newer
> revision/version and remove it from the license?
> You should get yourself a lawyer... That will be the day when one is
> not allowed to DELETE CODE.
>
> Oh dear.
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 15:33 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote:
> 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 right
Photo Leecher wrote:
> Where does it say that you cannot revoke an exception in a new
> version/revision?
> That doesn't make sense???
>
Sure
But it only applies to new code since last release when other rights
were granted.
This is NOT a GPL problem, it applies anytime you give somebody a time
Where does it say that you cannot revoke an exception in a new version/revision?
That doesn't make sense???
More reasons for any serious projects to steer clear from GPL and go with some
other license.
GPL, Gray_area Public License, where nobody can ever be sure of anything
because the language
On Jun 23, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 21:57 +0100, Spencer Oliver wrote:
[snip]
GPL is important, but i do not understand people's objections to
adding an
exception -
who exactly is this hurting?
Would you like to kick me in the nuts, while saying thing
Photo Leecher wrote:
> Oh really?
> So one can no longer remove code that uses FTDI2xx in a newer
> revision/version and remove it from the license?
> You should get yourself a lawyer... That will be the day when one is
> not allowed to DELETE CODE.
>
Cool it crazy wont build support.
The
Oh really?
So one can no longer remove code that uses FTDI2xx in a newer revision/version
and remove it from the license?
You should get yourself a lawyer... That will be the day when one is not
allowed to DELETE CODE.
Oh dear
From: Thomas A. Moulton
To:
David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Magnus Lundin wrote:
>
>> Zach does not speak for me. As far as I can see he and David are
>> actively against any exception, I am not!!!
>>
>
> I'm not against adding such an exception for the FTD2XX code.
>
>
This is a VERY different t
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:02 +, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent
> in sales of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware?
> Gotta love the impartiality here...
>
> The exception could be allowed now and then removed later once the
> suppose
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:10 +, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Guess what, OpenOCD wasn't started so YOU can get paid.
> If you don't like the way OpenOCD is managed, get out.
>
> You're quite an asswipe.
>
>
Lets keep it civil here.
In GPL Free means freedom, not no costs ever.
You can develop y
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
inconvenience
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Magnus Lundin wrote:
> Zach does not speak for me. As far as I can see he and David are
> actively against any exception, I am not!!!
I'm not against adding such an exception for the FTD2XX code.
However, I don't think it's practical to have one for a release
that ships
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Anders Montonen wrote:
> Ah, but just think about all those hordes of Windows OpenOCD users who
> will be waiting to shower you with gratitude..
You mean like Champagne bukkake?
http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=3206
;)
__
You certainly weren't the only one, yet you act you are the ONLY one that
matters.
You have taken over this project like no one else before. No one has ever
elected you as the supreme commander of the elite OpenOCD club.
I don't care about who's managing what, I just find it hypocritical how you
If one looks at his commits, he checked in a lot of BROKEN STUFF. Nice
meritocracy there!
So impartiality is only when it suits you eh?
I don't have to have submitted any patch to see that there are huge and biased
flaws in this argument.
Both Oyvind and you have bigger profitable hidden agendas
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Nico Coesel wrote:
> Just a remark about a tcp/ip socket server to get some
> discussion going in that direction. Isn't there some sort
> of library available that does all the hard work? Something
> like SOAP/DCOM/Corba without the typical configuration
> problems would be
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:10 +, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Guess what, OpenOCD wasn't started so YOU can get paid.
I do not expect any work to come my way from this.
> If you don't like the way OpenOCD is managed, get out.
Ditto. Oh, wait... who has been helping manage things here?
Go away. St
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:02 +, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent
> in sales of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware?
> Gotta love the impartiality here...
Screw impartiality. If this should be a meritocracy, then Øyvind has
contribute
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 23:52 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 23:37 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> >> > You will need to get confirmation from other contributors, as I think
> >> > the actual revision might be far lower than a
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> About the flame wars - since you are a developer I see those twice a
> month, along with some people departing the team. What is your great
> contribution to the code? Moving the scripts around in the tree,
> documentation updates, changing a==12;
2009/6/24 Spencer Oliver :
>
>> > What is the situation with the ZY1000, I assume that all
>> modifications
>> > to the OpenOCD source tree are public, but can you
>> guarantee that the
>> > code running on the Zylin1000 does not link to anything that is
>> > nonopen and thus violates the GPL ?
>>
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 00:00 +0200, Nico Coesel wrote:
> Dear readers,
> Just a remark about a tcp/ip socket server to get some discussion
> going in that direction. Isn't there some sort of library available
> that does all the hard work? Something like SOAP/DCOM/Corba without
> the typical configu
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Freddie Chopin wrote:
>
> > This *has* been explained. The issue wasn't lack of explanation.
> >
> > It was unwillingness to *accept* the explanation ... combined
> > with not presenting a viable alternative. Some folk clearly
> > haven't bothered to read any of the refe
2009/6/24 Magnus Lundin :
> Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Magnus Lundin wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ųyvind Harboe wrote:
>>>
Could you explain a bit about your thoughts on closed source
target and interface drivers together with OpenOCD?
I can imagine t
> > What is the situation with the ZY1000, I assume that all
> modifications
> > to the OpenOCD source tree are public, but can you
> guarantee that the
> > code running on the Zylin1000 does not link to anything that is
> > nonopen and thus violates the GPL ?
>
> zy1000 runs eCos which is G
Nice fail ignoring the impartiality bit.
The license could be changed before the libraries are finished, if there
weren't a bunch of religious haters who believe are above everyone else.
From: Øyvind Harboe
To: Photo Leecher
Cc: openocd-development@lists.berl
> We all want openocd to be open - I just do not see why adding
> an exception to ftd2xx is opening any floodgates for other vendors.
I have not seen a specific proposal for new license so I can't
really comment.
Do you want to list ftd2xx specifically when there are technical
solutions to that s
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Photo Leecher wrote:
> Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent in
> sales of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware?
What do you believe is a fair price for a zy1000 like product?
> Gotta love the impartiality here...
> The exception c
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Magnus Lundin wrote:
>
>> Ųyvind Harboe wrote:
>>
>>> Could you explain a bit about your thoughts on closed source
>>> target and interface drivers together with OpenOCD?
>>>
>>> I can imagine that a lot of CPU vendors would love the
Guess what, OpenOCD wasn't started so YOU can get paid.
If you don't like the way OpenOCD is managed, get out.
You're quite an asswipe.
From: Zach Welch
To: Spencer Oliver
Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Tuesday, 23 June, 2009 23:05:43
Subject:
>
> Against currently.
>
> The current technical problems are just a tiny bump in the
> road compared to the >2000 revisions we have in SVN.
>
> We need a robust license(GPL is that) and we need to make
> sure that all the things we want open stay open. Who's to say
> what the effects of an
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 21:57 +0100, Spencer Oliver wrote:
[snip]
> GPL is important, but i do not understand people's objections to adding an
> exception -
>>
> who exactly is this hurting?
>>
Would you like to kick me in the nuts, while sayi
Dear readers,
Just a remark about a tcp/ip socket server to get some discussion going in that
direction. Isn't there some sort of library available that does all the hard
work? Something like SOAP/DCOM/Corba without the typical configuration problems
would be nice. I think it is a bad idea to tr
Isn't it great that you are against a solution that would put a dent in sales
of your overpriced rip off 700€ hardware?
Gotta love the impartiality here...
The exception could be allowed now and then removed later once the supposed new
solutions are done and working.
___
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Magnus Lundin wrote:
> Ųyvind Harboe wrote:
>>
>> Could you explain a bit about your thoughts on closed source
>> target and interface drivers together with OpenOCD?
>>
>> I can imagine that a lot of CPU vendors would love the ability
>> to provide a closed source
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 23:37 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> > You will need to get confirmation from other contributors, as I think
>> > the actual revision might be far lower than anyone realizes presently.
>>
>> I started my contributions at sv
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 23:37 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> > You will need to get confirmation from other contributors, as I think
> > the actual revision might be far lower than anyone realizes presently.
>
> I started my contributions at svn 214 (or earlier, not easy to see
> from a cursory look
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Could you explain a bit about your thoughts on closed source
> target and interface drivers together with OpenOCD?
>
> I can imagine that a lot of CPU vendors would love the ability
> to provide a closed source plugin that talks to their CPU.
>
> Similarly I believe that ther
> You will need to get confirmation from other contributors, as I think
> the actual revision might be far lower than anyone realizes presently.
I started my contributions at svn 214 (or earlier, not easy to see
from a cursory look at the logs).
--
Øyvind Harboe
Embedded software and hardware
On Jun 23, 2009, at 23:53, John Devereux wrote:
> Anders Montonen writes:
> On Jun 23, 2009, at 21:20, Freddie Chopin wrote:
>>> Anders Montonen pisze:
Right, but section four says "You may not copy, modify, sublicense,
*or*
distribute the Program" (emphasis added). If it just conce
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:21 +0200, Nico Coesel wrote:
[snip]
> And here is the exact reason why the JTAG vendors are not going to put
> effort into OpenOCD. A marriage works both ways!
The wife wants to cheat on me. What, I'm suppose to just be a cuckold?
> I know I promised to contribute some g
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 19:35 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Monday 22 June 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 19:59 +0200, Dominic wrote:
> > >
> > > Øyvind mentioned the idea of wrapping the JTAG API in TCP/IP. Aside
> > > from performance implications I think this would require
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:16 +0200, Dominic wrote:
> Dear List,
>
>
>
> 1) I wont support any action against someone who distributes OpenOCD
> binaries
> linked against FTD2XX as long as there's no viable alternative. When I
> wrote
> the OpenOCD the liberties of potential users were paramount,
Could you explain a bit about your thoughts on closed source
target and interface drivers together with OpenOCD?
I can imagine that a lot of CPU vendors would love the ability
to provide a closed source plugin that talks to their CPU.
Similarly I believe that there are hardware debuggers that
wou
John Devereux wrote:
> Anders Montonen writes:
>
>
>> On Jun 23, 2009, at 21:20, Freddie Chopin wrote:
>>
>>> Anders Montonen pisze:
>>>
Right, but section four says "You may not copy, modify, sublicense,
*or*
distribute the Program" (emphasis added). If it just con
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 21:53 +0100, John Devereux wrote:
> Anders Montonen writes:
>
> > On Jun 23, 2009, at 21:20, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> >> Anders Montonen pisze:
> >>> Right, but section four says "You may not copy, modify, sublicense,
> >>> *or*
> >>> distribute the Program" (emphasis added
Dominic,
I agree with your comments, and feel it is a shame this whole situation has
occurred.
> 2) The OpenOCD project itself released binaries linked
> against FTD2XX on its Berlios page, for example
> openocd-cygwin-ftd2xx-20060213.tar.gz. I don't think it's
> totally unreasonable to extrap
Anders Montonen writes:
> On Jun 23, 2009, at 21:20, Freddie Chopin wrote:
>> Anders Montonen pisze:
>>> Right, but section four says "You may not copy, modify, sublicense,
>>> *or*
>>> distribute the Program" (emphasis added). If it just concerned
>>> distribution then there would be no room f
+++ Nico Coesel [2009-06-23 22:21 +0200]:
>I know I promised to contribute some go-along-the-road driver development
>documentation. The task of creating a driver for an FPGA JTAG accellerator
>is on my plate. However at the present I'm not sure if I'm willing to
>contribute any mor
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 20:23 +0100, Zach Welch wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 20:19 +0100, Ian Guffick wrote:
>> Hello to all,
>>
>> I don't want to get involved in the 'war' that seems to have erupted over
>> this issue.
>> I am a user of OpenOCD rather than a developer, I regularly grab SVN head
>
Hello,
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 20:37 +0200, Michael Fischer wrote:
>> Hello List,
>>
>> as I understand it correct, everything can be used, even close
>> software, if they do not use the "same" program space like
>> the GPL application. Now I have
>
> There is the ideal world and the real world.
>> - only 10% use both windows and Linux
>> - about 95% use FTd2xx driver (on windows or linux).
>>
>> Before talking too much about GPL issue ... bla bla bla ... we should
>> ask us some basic questions related to the success of OpenOCD project
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 v
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 21:33 +0200, Michael Bruck wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 20:49, Zach Welch wrote:
> > Why do you consider it OK to ignore what I and other contributors are
> > saying about the license? Why do you feel it necessary to disrespect
> > our copyright claims? If we interpret i
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 20:19 +0100, Ian Guffick wrote:
> Hello to all,
>
> I don't want to get involved in the 'war' that seems to have erupted over
> this issue.
> I am a user of OpenOCD rather than a developer, I regularly grab SVN head
> and compile it under Cygwin for Windows with FTD2XX.lib.
Dear List,
1) I wont support any action against someone who distributes OpenOCD binaries
linked against FTD2XX as long as there's no viable alternative. When I wrote
the OpenOCD the liberties of potential users were paramount, and this hasn't
changed. There is no viable alternative to FTD2XX on
This was uncalled for. A discussion on the license and our options is
appropriate. Insults and name-calling are being childish and are not
productive.
--
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
On
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 overinterpr
Hello to all,
I don't want to get involved in the 'war' that seems to have erupted over
this issue.
I am a user of OpenOCD rather than a developer, I regularly grab SVN head
and compile it under Cygwin for Windows with FTD2XX.lib. And I will continue
to do so for my private build.
It is clear
>
> It's clear to me, that many here have forgotten the main IDEA. The IDEA
> behind OpenOCD was to provide a free and open tool for ARM developers
> that could be used with FT2232-based JTAGs. Now some think the idea is
> to be Uber-GPL-we-don't-care-for-the-users.
>
>
This is an important
On Jun 23, 2009, at 21:20, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> Anders Montonen pisze:
>> Right, but section four says "You may not copy, modify, sublicense,
>> *or*
>> distribute the Program" (emphasis added). If it just concerned
>> distribution then there would be no room for interpretation.
> Still I don'
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 20:49, Zach Welch wrote:
> Why do you consider it OK to ignore what I and other contributors are
> saying about the license? Why do you feel it necessary to disrespect
> our copyright claims? If we interpret it thusly, why do you think that
> your interpretation should be
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 l
> The software is not linked against those libraries, nor does it need
> them to run.
>
> Regards,
> Anders
The same can be done with OpenOCD and FTD2XX.
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.b
> On Jun 23, 2009, at 22:05, Photo Leecher wrote:
> The general rule is that if the binaries run in the same process and/
> or
> memory space it forms a "combined work", which must be licensed
> under the
> GPL. As always, the GPL FAQ is a recommended read.
>> Congratulations, you have just dec
Hi Freddie,
you have posted good patches in the past and we are
looking forward to many more.
You're a smart guy. It is my firm belief that you will
see and experience things in the open source
community where you will learn to appreciate the
advantages of GPL. I'm convinced that you will eventua
You are one of the biggest "over-interpreters" (along with you
attorney), so I'll just say, that original idea of open-source is surely
dead... There goes your "idealism" and fighting for freedom.
Why doesn't your attorney post some good explanations, but not based on
"I think that everything i
>> 1. Why a "wrapper" library which would be GPL-with-exception-for-ftd2xx
>> cannot be linked with OpenOCD? I don't see ANY phrase in GPL that says
>> that GPL can be linked only to 100%-GPL-stuff-without-exceptions.
>> Moreover - I see no sentence which says that "GPL-chain" has to be
>> infinite
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
