Timothy Normand Miller wrote:
> On 2/29/08, PcgScrapAddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But does the MIT license allow for a built-in revenue stream?
No, but Traversal isn't selling software.
> We thought about all of this more than three years ago when we were
> starting out. RMS suggested that we may want to hold back on
> releasing some of the HDL for OGA for a time until we have recouped
> our development costs. This is about the best protection we can get.
> As for OGD1, it's a test of concept. We've released all design
> documents under GPL. Will someone undercut us and put us out of
> business? If that did happen, it would be an eye-opener to the Free
> Software community that their philosophy isn't perfect, that people
> can get screwed for their generosity.
[jg]This is just how I am thinking of free hardware and software licenses.
I can't compete with mainstream products or Wall Street companies. I will use
open licenses to bootstrap into selling to niche markets and set up hurdles to
competitors
so it mostly makes sense to buy my "first wave" innovations, then build on them
to make more open hardware. Once you want to go at a mainstream market, you
go back
to trade secrets and make a deal with TT for a full, paid license, or a new
chip from them.
Ways to execute that mode of high volume product could be hire TT, or license
some
of the HDL code fully, and go to a company like Viasic for single metal mask
programmable
minimally custom chips. Then IC mask making charges (maybe $150K) and the
full TT license
will protect you more, (Once you sell enough to earn lawyer hiring levels of
money too...).
but if you are looking to seal up
deals where your chipset funds ongoing work then you may have a problem
since nvidia and ati will both scoop on that in a heartbeat.
[jg] We're in niche market mode -- we can't seal any deals.
They may scoop function, but they can't legally promote any openness
that goes along with their business model, only non-sell GPL uses... so TT will
still have
customers for using the proven hardware as a building block for more
rapid incremental innovation. They can't sell development tools, or face a
licensing
court challenge from TT. It's very possible to sell something complete
and functional even with an open hardware license and not get too much
copycat competition if it is a small niche market, and if the hardware
tooling is enough of a hurdle. People pay for innovation, so you can't expect
them
to pay after years go by, just for the first wave of newness -- 3 years? 5
years? then no more,
unless you have a proprietary trade secret from the start.
What if nVidia made a part open, part closed video card with open-graphics core?
It would just promote open-graphics. It would sell some nVidia chipset parts
and open-graphics parts at the same time... hardware can be separated
physically
and even if sharing a bus, or using GPL coed, it cleanly separates license-wise.
Like I say, the only protection for OGA (the 3D engine design) is to
not release all of the HDL right away. I've gotten a lot of flak for
that idea, although I started getting a whole lot less when RMS
suggested it and let me quote him on it.
Not trying to be a downer here but you can trust business weenies about
as much as politicians and lawyers so ...
We have the best legal protections that we CAN have given the circumstances.
[jg] Here's a way I am going to use TT's dual licensed open hardware: Sell
physical hardware under TAPR open hardware lic. (GPL compatible) that uses
open-graphics as building blocks. That will create more experimenter tools, and
so promote use of the open HW core. The hardware will not be cost reduced as
far as an ASIC.
So my customers will buy for a couple of years, then buy my new stuff. I plan
on a stream of innovation,
not a stream of income after one innovation.
John Griessen
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
