On Thursday 12 May 2005 13:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 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.
Okay. I'm not a hardware engineer, so I hadn't considered an SoC, I was thinking about a circuit board with a Geode and an OGP. Thanks for clearing that up. > > 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. #include <mysql.h> #include <qapplication.h> I rest my case. > 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. I fail to see how program A is a derived work of program B if it connects to it. But maybe we should continue that particular discussion off-list if you want to, this one isn't about legal theories after all. > > 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. Well, wouldn't the object be a derived work, just like a poster replica of a painting is, and a copy of a book is a derived work from the (electronic) manuscript that the author handed over to the publisher, etc. IANAL, but I don't see all that much of a problem there. > >> 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). I'm not sure that that would be enough to convince any investors to fork over a couple of million dollars. Lourens
pgp3m1akXXs5Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
