> On 5/18/05, Lourens Veen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wednesday 18 May 2005 02:00, Timothy Miller wrote: >> > On 5/17/05, Eric Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > Timothy wrote: >> > > >> > > I'm hoping that Timothy and his partners and investors will be >> willing >> > > to make the RTL available *before* it is GPL'd to hardware hackers >> that >> > > have a serious interest in contributing to the project, under a >> non-GPL >> > > license that doesn't allow public distribution. If there is a >> serious >> > > commitment to releasing under the GPL by a certain date (especially >> if >> > > there is escrow), that should provide sufficient access for people >> to >> > > start contributing. >> > >> > With an NDA, this should be fine. Of course, there's a risk of it >> > getting leaked if too many people get it, so even with the NDA, it >> > shouldn't be free; this way, only serious people get it, and I believe >> > there are some legal reasons why a contract is more binding when money >> > is exchanged (something about 'consideration'), but IANAL. >> > >> > In any event, what should it cost? And it would be easier to roll the >> > 'hobbyist' and 'commercial' license into one, where the up-front fee >> > isn't too bad in either case, and there's also a royalty for each chip >> > you produce. >> > >> > Suggestions? >> >> Keep them separate. Have a commercial licence at a commercial rate (I >> think >> $25k was mentioned, I have no idea what would be reasonable), and have a >> hobbyist licence that is much cheaper, but requires the licencee to >> contribute the source to his/her derived works back to the project if >> they >> are distributed (like the Mozilla Public License), that is if you allow >> distribution in binary form of derived works at all. This way, hobbyists >> can >> hack privately, and contribute to the project, but if you want to use >> the IP >> in your own proprietary project you'll need to get a developer's >> licence. > > That sounds good. Anyone else have any objections? >
I prefer a kind of non-commercial licence for the hobbyist licence of the code. I don't see any interret to make this licence not free of charge. You will have to manage number of copy and the interreset in the code will be much lower. _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
