There are (at least) two independent issues here. 1) Does the end-user get access to the "source code" [1] ? This is what the GPL is all about. The end-user needs access to the source code to a) learn how the code/device works, b) verify that it does what it claims to do (e.g. no "back doors"), c) fix bugs, including security holes, d) modify it to meet their needs.
2) Money. If someone is going to make money from the project, those who contributed must get their fair share. Many developers feel quite strongly about one or both of these issues. To avoid problems there must be transparency. I believe a large fraction of the previous problem was the lack of transparency. There are trade-offs. Some developers will not contribute to a project if their work will go into closed-source products. On the other hand, those closed-source products could provide money to fund development of additional open-source products. Which is the better way to go? I don't know. I feel like I need to re-read Pirsig [2] or watch Caine try to snatch the pebble again, or something. Gary writes: > As for the Open Graphics "entity", how about a non-profit foundation? Didn't we already do this? What happened to openhardwarefoundation.org ? At the moment it doesn't even ping. [1] Or "blueprints" or "receipe" or whatever you want to call it in the case of hardware. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Pirsig [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu_(TV_series) _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
