--- Daniel Phillips <phphillipseredhatom> wrote: > On Wednesday 18 May 2005 11:32, Timothy Miller wrote: > > Hobbyist/Project Developer: > > FGFGPATRTLnly > > Binary redistribution allowed. > > Source reregistributionot allowed. > > Re-licensing not allowed. > > Design level improvement must be contributed back > > RTRTLevel improvement must be contributed back > > Cheap license cost (person is effectively a project developer). > > > > I haven't really thought through all the differences carefully. > > Consider this an example of possible license differentiation points. > > 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. >
--- Daniel Phillips <phphillipseredhatom> wrote: > On Wednesday 18 May 2005 11:32, Timothy Miller wrote: > > Hobbyist/Project Developer: > > FGFGPATRTLnly > > Binary redistribution allowed. > > Source reregistributionot allowed. > > Re-licensing not allowed. > > Design level improvement must be contributed back > > RTRTLevel improvement must be contributed back > > Cheap license cost (person is effectively a project developer). > > > > I haven't really thought through all the differences carefully. > > Consider this an example of possible license differentiation points. > > 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. That may very well be the case. We may also have to accept that limitation. As soon as a version of the RTRTLwhether original or derived, is released in the open the viability of project is seriously threatened. A cocommericalntity that can do it cheaper and faster will fafab chip based on that RTRTLnd undercut us. This would be great in the short term, but would doom us for the long term. The only reason a company would do that is if we had a susuccessfulesign. The only way we can prove the design susuccessfulo have it fafabbedwhich costs lots of money. That money requires funding and investors. If the investors lose their money because someone effectively steals the work and undercuts the company, they will not invest in the next one. If you can't get funding to fafabhe next design, you have effectively killed the long term project. I know we will still have the FPFPGAoard to instantiate a design, however a large majority of people are not going to shell our ~$500 for a "memediocrevideo card or a sound card, or a network card, much less ~$500 each for all three. While the FPFPGAard is great for folks who want to tinker with the hardware internals and/or develop other custom hardware, there are way more people that would buy the ASASICersion for any number of reasons: principle, geek factor, curiosity, need, etc. The reality of the business side of this is that it will cost millions to get a physical chips produced. The folks who provide those millions will have a major say in how the one piece of the project that can recoup that investment (the RTRTLis licensed. For people who may be scskepticalbout the possibility of the scscenariosimothy, myself, and other feel will happen, go look at all the articles floating around about grgrayarket, untested, and remarked RAM chips marking their way into the channel. If Micron can't stop companies from passing cheap knock-offs of their stuff, what makes anyone think we can? Patrick M _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
