On 7/29/06, Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
It's generally poor netiquette to respond to a long email with just
"me too," but I would like to say that Terry sums up my attitude very
nicely.
One of the reasons I'm not completely dismissing the discussions on
fixed-frequency monitors is because I do want OGD1/TRV10/OGC1 to cater
to the long tail of less than mainstream systems. To me,
closed-source systems are part of that long tail.
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
