nanogui: Licensing


Previous by date: 11 May 1999 22:57:44 -0000 Re: re:, Greg Haerr
Next by date: 11 May 1999 22:57:44 -0000 Re: NanoX version 0.3 released, Vidar Hokstad
Previous in thread: 11 May 1999 22:57:44 -0000 Re: Licensing, Vidar Hokstad
Next in thread: 11 May 1999 22:57:44 -0000 Re: Licensing, Greg Haerr

Subject: RE: Licensing
From: Greg Haerr ####@####.####
Date: 11 May 1999 22:57:44 -0000
Message-Id: <01BE9BCF.B4EEFF90.greg@censoft.com>

My concern over licensing is fairly simple:  I want to create a project,
where, in return for my intensive coding efforts, I can gain access to some
code that I would like to have, also.

This doesn't mean there has to be a one-for-one correspondance in that
anybody who uses nanoX commercially or privately necessarily has to hand
over all the code.  Except that I want to make sure that we get proper contribution
for low level driver draw code, for instance.  It would be nice to not have to write
all the code to use nanoX on all the machines and mice that I have.

So - how can we make a license that allows people to use nanoX on their
own projects, while still trying to get some collaboration by getting the nanoX 
project growing as well?

Greg

On Tuesday, May 11, 1999 3:01 AM, Alex Holden ####@####.#### wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
> > Personally, I like the FreeBSD model license the best.  It is the
> > traditional BSD licensing, with the advertising/documentation clause
> > removed.  It gives the software the most freedom to be used in any
> 
> I quite like it too, though it does mean that companies can take your
> code, improve it, sell it, and not release the improvements. Some people
> don't like that, as it means a commercial version of the program they put
> a lot of effort into writing is better than their own version of it.
> 
> > Putting it under the GPL would make it very hard for somebody to
> > deploy a PDA device with this gui if they wanted (or needed) to keep
> > the source code secret, or be forced to release portions of their
> > product that give them a competive advantage.  This can be both good
> 
> We're only talking about the server itself, not the programs which run on
> it. It doesn't seem right that a company should be able to improve the
> server without releasing the improvements. One thing which just came to
> mind though, is what if a company writes a module, ie a graphics driver or
> window manager which links in with the server, or if they want to use the
> server in "linked into the application" mode rather than client/server
> mode...
> 
> I think I still prefer leaving it as it is, with the addition of a "we are
> not responsible" clause, which is missing at the moment, or maybe changing
> it to FreeBSD style, which is very close anyway.
> 
> --------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
> : Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
> -------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
> 

Previous by date: 11 May 1999 22:57:44 -0000 Re: re:, Greg Haerr
Next by date: 11 May 1999 22:57:44 -0000 Re: NanoX version 0.3 released, Vidar Hokstad
Previous in thread: 11 May 1999 22:57:44 -0000 Re: Licensing, Vidar Hokstad
Next in thread: 11 May 1999 22:57:44 -0000 Re: Licensing, Greg Haerr


Powered by ezmlm-browse 0.20.