> On Wednesday 11 May 2005 10:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I know few people that did not want to help a product that is not full >> open source. Maybe they are ok for the (gpl/BSD) drivers but not the >> hardware part. >> >> Timothy seems smart but what happen to the work of the communauty if >> there >> new compagny is bought ? GPL is supposed to prevent this kind of case >> (in >> the opposite of BSD). >> >> Look at compagny like MySQL labs and Trolltech, they sell a GPL software >> to people that want make proprietary stuff. >> >> OPG could do the same : produice pure GPL code, and sell the IP to the >> embedded people for people that did not want GPL code mixed with others. > > Doesn't work. If you're building an embedded system, you just put an OGP > chip > on it.
Embedded system means most of the time a SoC or a big FPGA that could contain the IP of OGP. In that case, it's clear that you need a none GPL core if you want to put your own code without make it GPL. > Doesn't matter if its RTL is GPLled, because the GPL doesn't > propagate > across chip boundaries. Using MySQL and QT requires _including_ their code Non there is never such inclusion. Qt is a dynamic library. It's even morevspecial for Mysql because it's a server. There is "no linking" with mysql. But the GPL did not speak about liking but "derived forme of work". So if you build something that _need_ mysql you must follow the rule of mysql. > into your program rather than just communicating with it, so you can't get > around the GPL this way. The whole point of OGP is that you have a clearly > documented interface instead, so that _anyone_ can interface with it. > Imagine > an FTP server with such a licence model. GPLing it doesn't prevent anyone > from connecting to it with a proprietary client, because the FTP protocol > is clearly defined. Without saying it you point an other problem : the validity of licence on copyrighted material applied to an object. It's not clear how you could link an object with the licence of the material you use to build this object. > > And who do you buy that chip for your embedded system from? The seller > with > the best offer. Who's that? Well, anyone _but_ Timothy and co, because > _they_ > still have to get back their initial investment. >From the point of view of the price of a chip maybe. But not in terme of quality of support. > >> If the pure retail market is too small, i don't think you could be >> copied >> easly. Then if you're in success, you will have few month advance for a >> new product. >> >> To even prevent copying, try to have a strong trademark, and defend it. > > So? Copy the thing, give it a different name. Trademarks only protect > words. > They protect your investment in marketing, in building brand recognition. > Not in coding. Sur but the point is to have enough money back. An other compagny will need more effort to convince the market. And very bad advertising could be done to this compagny (like for sigma design). nicO _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
