Patrick wrote:
> Hobbyist/Project Developer:
> FGPA RTL only
> Binary redistribution allowed.
> Source registribution not allowed.
> Re-licensing not allowed.
> Design level improvement must be contributed back
> RTL level improvement must be contributed back
> Cheap license cost (person is effectively a project developer).
Daniel wrote:
> No form of license fee will fly for project developers. Restricted
> redistribution will put the project in the category of "non-free" for
> no good reason. Not many will join.
IMHO, you're overlooking two things:
1) The guarantee that the RTL code *will* become GPL'd at a later date
will get some people who would not contributed to a closed-source
project to be willing to work on it even before that date.
For instance, I myself would probably never contribute to such a
project if it was closed, but as long as there is sufficient
reason to believe that the code really will be GPL'd on a certain
date (either because that's written into the license, or because of
an escrow arrangement), I'd be perfectly happy to contribute.
In my case, although I have some Verilog experience (and a lot
more VHDL experience), I don't think I actually have sufficient
spare time to contribute much of value. But I suspect that there
are experienced developers who do have spare time, enthusiasm, and
feel as I do about the "future GPL" concept.
I do think this ONLY applies if their is a very firmly established
commitment to go GPL on a certain date. A wishy-washy "we'll do
it someday", or "we'll do it after we've made enough money" would
definitely not attract developers. Fortunately, Timothy seems to
fully understand this, as demonstrated by his previous postings on
the subject.
2) A small license fee up front, even if it's fairly trivial (perhaps
$25) serves a very useful function. It keeps people who are not
going to do serious development work from getting involved early and
being a net drain on the project (needing excessive handholding,
etc.). If there was such a license fee, and it was an actual
hardship for someone who could otherwise contribute, I expect that
either that person could convince Timothy to waive the fee, or
that another developer would be willing to pay it. For instance,
I would personally be willing to pay that fee for someone if I saw
that he or she was actually an experienced Verilog developer, and
was enthusiastic about contributing to the project. (In reality
I doubt that there are many experienced Verilog developers that
couldn't afford a small fee.)
Eric
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
