nanogui: Request for comments - Microwindows


Previous by date: 4 Oct 1999 23:59:42 -0000 Re: Request for comments - Microwindows, Quinn D Weaver
Next by date: 4 Oct 1999 23:59:42 -0000 Re: Request for comments - Microwindows, Greg Haerr
Previous in thread: 4 Oct 1999 23:59:42 -0000 Re: Request for comments - Microwindows, Quinn D Weaver
Next in thread: 4 Oct 1999 23:59:42 -0000 Re: Request for comments - Microwindows, Greg Haerr

Subject: Re: Request for comments - Microwindows
From: "Bradley D. LaRonde" ####@####.####
Date: 4 Oct 1999 23:59:42 -0000
Message-Id: <042d01bf0ec3$92005490$b8119526@ltc.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: Vidar Hokstad ####@####.####
To: Bradley D. LaRonde ####@####.####
Cc: ####@####.#### ####@####.####
Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: Request for comments - Microwindows


> On Mon, 4 Oct 1999 17:32:09 -0400 you wrote:
> >I think that GPL is the answer for the server part.
>
> Then you've killed the static linking potential for a lot of developers,
> who will then likely look to other projects instead.

I haven't yet heard anyone here say that they need to link proprietary code
to the static model.


> At the very least
> the server needs to be LGPL'd, preferrably MPL'd, or as Alex suggested
> MPL'd with an added provision for users to do a one way conversion to
> GPL/LGPL.

The server needs?  I don't need it.  Who here needs it?  Or are we trying to
accomodate hypothetical users?


> >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.
>
> In that case I'll have to start evaluating other systems for my work,
> since it was a hard enough sell to go for the MPL for some of our
partners.

The only thing is you can't use proprietary drivers in the server.  Does
that mean that you have to stop contributing to the LGPL client side, or
abandon Micro* completely?  You could (I imagine very easily) derive a new
server for the proprietary hardware from the same original sources, but
still use the LGPL Micro* client side non-statically linked.

Are we going to cater to proprietary interests or create a completely
open-source system?  And if we don't create it open-source, how long will it
be before MicroFree* comes along?


Regards,
Brad


Previous by date: 4 Oct 1999 23:59:42 -0000 Re: Request for comments - Microwindows, Quinn D Weaver
Next by date: 4 Oct 1999 23:59:42 -0000 Re: Request for comments - Microwindows, Greg Haerr
Previous in thread: 4 Oct 1999 23:59:42 -0000 Re: Request for comments - Microwindows, Quinn D Weaver
Next in thread: 4 Oct 1999 23:59:42 -0000 Re: Request for comments - Microwindows, Greg Haerr


Powered by ezmlm-browse 0.20.