On 8/8/06, Joshua Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:35:13PM -0400, Timothy Miller wrote:
> Yeah, LGPL will probably be okay. With a BIOS, since it's usually a
> stand-alone thing, it won't probably be a problem. However, with
> kernel and X11 drivers, we have to be careful to be as broadly
> compatible as possible with different OSs and such. We want people to
> be able to rip code and put it into another system without worrying
> too much about licensing.
The kernel driver, the fbconsole driver, and the dri driver should all
be GPL (in hopes of being made part of the mainline kernel tree
someday), but that doesn't stop the code from being dual licensed, which
is what some people do when they want their code to be kept in both
Linux and NetBSD.
Fair enough. Let's be sure to state expliticly in the code that it's
multi-licensed. With the BSD option, we don't need to complicate it
with any Traversal licensing. So basically, we can say that the code
is licensable under GPL, LGPL, MIT, and BSD, which ever way you feel
you need to use it.
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
