On 8/22/05, Nicolas Boulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le dimanche 21 Août 2005 20:48, Timothy Miller a écrit : > > // Open Graphics 3D renderer model, Mark 2 > > // Copyright 2005, Traversal Technology > > // Written by Andy Fong > > > > > > // This source code is licensed as follows: > > // (1) By default, the sole copyright owner is Traversal Technology, under > > a // proprietary license. Traversal may make proprietary use of this > > work // and any derivative works. > > // (2) By default, any changes submitted by community members fall under > > this // same license. Traversal Technology will openly publish all > > internally // and externally-provided modifications to this work under > > this same // license. Traversal Technology may opt to not publish IP > > that may // or may not be considered a derivative work (ie. a chip). > > // (3) At any time, members of the open source community, at their > > choosing, // are authorized to convert an instance of this work to the > > GPL license. // Under such circumstances, this license change must be > > explicitly // indicated in the GPL fork so that clause (2) is not > > invoked. > > > > I don't understand the need of this kind of stuff. You want to make some > special licence to keep a certain amount of control on the code ?
Sortof. Not control. Rights. > > But this is exactly what is done for Qt and MySQL. All of them are GPL > released but the compagny ask the patch writer to give them there copyirght. > That way the compagny could deliver closed version of there product. Ok, I see what you're saying. The only difference between what I want to do and what they so is that I would like to set up the default to be that I have rights to the patch. It looks like TrollTech makes a release. At that time, they also make an identical GPL fork. Then when a patch appears, they ask permission to have rights to the patch, etc. What I would like to do is arrange it so that any patch someone checks into an official repository or sends to me directly is automatically something I have rights to. If someone else wants to make a patch but NOT give me rights to it, then they have the right to make a copy of the original, modify it, and host it on their site, all under the GPL. Basically, I don't want to spend a bunch of time asking for permission. I need a legally bullet-proof chain of ownership that doesn't prevent me from making hardware that there is a real need for, and allows my company to maintain a competitive advantage so that we can profit and reinvest that profit into more hardware that is friendly to Free Software. People have their "out", and beyond that, they're going to have to trust me that I won't abuse their contribution. > > If the problem are the chip seen as derivated work of the model, this could > not be a problem. Chip are product that can't failed under the copyright law. Not the chip so much as the Verilog code that defines the chip. If we were to translate the model from C++ to Modula 2, there might be grounds for considering the Modula 2 code to be a derivative work of the C++ code. With the C++ code under GPL, the Module 2 code may also be. With Verilog, you can't really make a direct translation, because the structure is fundamentally different. In that case, the C++ code becomes more like documentation, and the Verilog is not a derivative work. But I DO NOT want to TEST that argument in court (of law or public opinion), and I don't want anyone to feel burned because I plagarized their work. So, right up front, I'm telling you what I want to do. People who want to help this project can contribute code under those terms, and they'll just have to trust that I'll act in good faith and release the Verilog under GPL at a future date. All of this is done in the name of being able to find investors willing to contribute to a traditionally safe investment. There is no other immediately-available way to afford the cost of ASIC development. But I'll tell you this: If a big chunk of money were to come out of nowhere, or we were to sell so many Unity boards that we ended up with a few million $ in profit, the GPL code would come out at the same time the Clarity boards hit the shelves. I have no particular desire to keep anything secret for any longer than necessary. _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
