Hamish Marson wrote:
I see the MIT/BSD license as being detrimental to the whole concept of OGP & Traversal. It lets a company (e.g. M$, ATI, NVidea) wait till we've done the work & use their money to market Traversal out & close them down. Then drop the product for their own. leaving us no better off than we were before (Because there'll be no-one left to build boards).
IMHO, this is a problem only if you release the *hardware design* under a non-copyleft license. Drivers are a different matter. Since they're tied to the hardware anyway, there's not much reason to worry about them. OTOH, a non-copyleft license means someone can release a proprietary driver for an OGP/TT card. A copyleft on the drivers would be an unnecessary drag on adoption of the card, I would imagine. This might be a bit different picture if the "drivers" were terribly complex software, where you need the guarantee of patches getting back into the main sources. In that sense, you should GPL the more general-purpose higher-level elements (DRI?) and let only the low-level stuff be MIT/X11 licensed. Also, it's no small advantage that MIT/X11 licensed drivers could go right into the X distribution. OTOH, it's your project -- I'm only commenting informationally, and GPL is not a problem for anything I personally want to do. Cheers, Terry -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.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)
