Wait, wait. I think we're getting some things mixed up here. We are NOT discussing the ASIC right now. We are discussing the C++ model that will be open source from the beginning. The model will be published under a proprietary license with the provision that ANYONE can convert it to GPL at ANY TIME. To me, it's under a proprietary license. To you, it's either that license or the GPL, as you please. If you want to contribute to the project as it's going, you can submit your changes under MY license, and then they'll instantly come back out and be available under GPL if you choose.
All I'm trying to do is pull a TrollTech or MySQL, but with a slightly different set of priorities. People don't have a problem with TrollTech, so they shouldn't have a problem with what we're doing. Perhaps I'm going about this wrong. Perhaps it should be under GPL, and I can refuse to accept contributions into my tree if I don't get from you the permission I need. That's what TrollTech and MySQL do. Would you prefer it that way? I just don't want to have to mess about with making sure everyone's given me permission. Separate from all this the Verilog code. The Verilog code that goes into the ASIC will be combination of LGPL code and GPL code. The different condition there is that the GPL code will be time-delayed. Escrow is probably the best answer there. On 8/22/05, Jack Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't truly understand what this says. Possibly it will become > clearer when the legal minds get to work on it. > Possibly community contributions may need to be dual-licensed from > the beginning, so that they're under LGPL, but Traversal is also allowed to > merge them with proprietary Verilog files that go into the ASIC build. Or > maybe LGPL allows both uses of outside contributions as long as the source > files are statically linked but not actually merged; I haven't really > studied LGPL the way I have GPL. > The "community" might be defined as everybody who isn't an employee > or officer of Traversal. > One way of licensing Traversal-created source code that would > satisfy the community would be to issue it from the beginning under an > irrevocable LGPL, but have that license take effect on a specific date far > enough in the future to satisfy the investors. That raises the question of > putting the source code in some sort of escrow so that trade secret > protection is preserved while assuring the community that it will eventually > be published even in case of business failure. What's the rental on a safe > deposit box for 5 years? I could probably foot the bill for that myself. > > _______________________________________________ > Open-graphics mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics > List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com) > _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
