nanogui: Request for comments - Microwindows
Subject:
Re: Request for comments - Microwindows
From:
Quinn D Weaver ####@####.####
Date:
4 Oct 1999 22:48:09 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.991004173401.28742C-100000@steel3.ucs.indiana.edu>
On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Bradley D. LaRonde wrote:
> If Linux was guided from the start by that thinking, it may never have made
> it to that point either.
>
> I think that GPL is the answer for the server part.
>
> Do we believe in this thing or not? I do.
>
> Are we willing to reverse engineer a few devices? Are we willing to have to
> write some extra code now and then? I am.
>
> So let's just take a deep breath, GPL the server part, go forward, and not
> look back.
>
> As for the client part, same thing execpt add an L before the GPL.
Hi, folks,
I'm just a nanogui lurker, trying to pick up as much as I can about the
design and the release timetable of nanogui, but perhaps what I have to
say counts for something. After all, I am a potential nanowidget
(application) developer, and I am definitely a potential customer for
Screenmedia's device, once it comes out.
I think this is the most sensible advice I have heard so far re: the
licensing issue. I, for one, would be much more inclined to buy a
nanogui-running device if I knew that its software was 100% free (as in
free speech, of course) and that it would always be that way, no
matter what devices it was ported to. By the same token, I would be
much more inclined to develop applications for that platform. Why?
Well, I am committed to the idea of free software, and I want my
code to be useful to people. Dependency on closed-source--and hence
likely buggy and feature-starved--code would make my software less
useful.
In general, I think a no-compromises open-source license will be better
for the customer and for the developer base.
Regards,
--Quinn Weaver
