On 2/29/08, PcgScrapAddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Linux drivers need to be GPL so they can be included in the mainline > kernel but we are so far away from that I shouldn't even mention it. The > rest of the stuff needs to be under a MySQL like license in that if you > are commercial then pay up! I think this is what is being striven for so > a revenue stream is built-in to support ongoing development. > > Am I wrong?
GPL, especially v3, is compatible with MIT in the sense that something that was under MIT can be combined with GPL code without problems. There is also room for automatically relicensing MIT code under GPL because MIT doesn't have any major requirements that are incompatible with the GPL. Finally, if any situation were to arise where the MIT license caused a problem for combining with GPL, we would explicitly relicense it under GPL. The major reason to have any license at all is legal. If you release something in to the public domain, you can get sued over it. These licenses, on the other hand, have protection clauses that state that if you use it, the authors are not held responsible for any harm you may suffer through the use of our stuff. Of course, those clauses don't universally hold up in court, but it's still good CYA. -- 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)
