On Nov 11, 2007 10:34 PM, Timothy Normand Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > It's a dual license that explicitly states that you can use the work > under the terms of the GPL. You may or may not be allowed to use > OGP-related trademarks, depending on various circumstances, but the > code is out there to be used under GPL. That means that you can do > whatever you want with it and build commercial products from it, as > long as you release the source code (in some way) along with your > product. That is, if you use our PCI controller under GPL, then your > only requirement (from the GPL) is that you make it possible for the > user of your device to acquire the source code to that and anything > it's linked to. > > The only unusual bit is that if you want to participate in the OGP and > be considered a "contributing member," then you should commit > additions to our SVN repository (well, that's one of the ways). That > does not in any way change YOUR rights. But it does allow Traversal > to commercialize your work in a way that does not bind it under the > GPL. > > Traversal was created for two purposes. One is to productize OGP > developments. Since they're hardware, they require expendatures, and > to make those expendatures, we need to be able to make profit. The > second is as an interface to the "old school" corporate world. For > the latter, we do things like use licensing deals in order to make > more profit that we can invest into developing more open hardware. > > When you work with us, consider how you want your work to be turned > into hardware. None of this is about PERSONAL profit. It's about > bootstrapping a community to build hardware, which is expensive. > (Although in fairness, others have pointed out that Andy, Howard, and > I should be able to get something back from the money we've spent and > the stress this has put on our families.) > > > Long story short, will I be able to use stuff from SVN with just a > > GPL license slapped on it instead of the dual license? > > Yes. > > > All code I'm writing myself will be put under any licenses at my > > discretion, so I can put it in license X* for my own project and the > > 'traversal license' for OGP. > > Yes, absolutely. It's YOUR WORK, so you own it and can do whatever > you want with it. If you license it to us, that gives us extra > rights, but it doesn't take away from yours. > > > Which I will, if that piece is useful > > for OGP. But the moment other people start adding to project VGA > > there's a change the above story occurs, but then that OGP has to > > work it's way around license X. > > You and those who contribute specifically to your project are the ones > who must decide what to contribute to the OGP. > > Now, let's talk again about specifics here. You want to develop a > VGA-only graphics board and sell it. I'm not worried about your board > license. I think it would be just dandy if you were to use our code > to make your board work. You sell your board, you make your profit, > and you decide if you want to donate some of that money to the OHF. > In exchange, the OGP will get bug fixes and other important additions > that we can incorporate into our open graphics products. Everybody's > happy. > > > In all cases we want to avoid a whole linux-steals-from-bsd story > > there was recently. > > http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070829001634 > > Yeah, that was ugly and unnecessary. This is why we try to be very > clear up-front about our licensing terms.
So, external non-OGP repositories can keep only Traverslal copyright and GPL license? Just to make it clear, because the "wrapper license" only permits to remove: "2) This Work is also licensed as a proprietary work, all rights belonging to Traversal Technology. Traversal Technology may use this Work under those terms and has the right to publish, license, and sell this Work and derivative works as they see fit. To remove these rights, you must remove this clause." I know that the wrapper license with that removed becomes GPL with inofensive text. But the wrapper license is not specific about the others terms.(Yeah, I'm nitpicking, but that's pretty much what Theo was doing too :) ) Also this dual-licensing is kind of non-sense for its purpose. I might need to search the archive for previous discussion but copyright assignment like Qt, MySQL, Coyotos and other projects do is more effective and clear, isn't it? (Might be a bureaucracy burden, but it's worth since it's a proven model) > > -- > Timothy Normand Miller > http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~millerti > Open Graphics Project > > _______________________________________________ > 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)
