"J.O. Aho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > Far from any expert in the filed, but I think making > a driver would be the same as linking a program > against a gpl library, the license would taint the code, > which would prevent the closed source driver. There > would be a need of a LGPL to allow closed source drivers.
I doubt that an OGC device driver could not be closed source. It's the uses of the OGD that worries me. I can understand why most Linux people aren't worried by the one GNU world order. I am, but not because I enjoy closed source. I don't. I simply value diversity, choice and what -I- perceive as freedom, which is closer to the values of a classic "public domain", or 2-clause BSD. I don't want to perceive the world as consumer/open vs producer/closed. I don't think the solution is to force open- ness on the producers, but to undo the ever-increasing consumer/producer dichotomy. (Which is why I support the Open Graphics project.) > Frankly I don't see the gain in making a closed source driver > when "everything" is already "open source", but of course > microsoft would like to hide their comments about open source ;) "Everything" is very much a point of view. (LAMP?) Linux and Microsoft are equally [ir]relevant to me. I'm not too interested in either, even though Unix culture and software is as relevant as ever. (Still haven't found what I'm looking for...) /Jonas Sundström. www.kirilla.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)
