Subject:
Re: Licensing summary
From:
"Bradley D. LaRonde" ####@####.####
Date:
5 Oct 1999 14:06:51 -0000
Message-Id: <007401bf0f39$e4f75470$b8119526@ltc.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Haerr ####@####.####
To: 'Vidar Hokstad' ####@####.#### Bradley D. LaRonde
####@####.#### 'Alan Cox' ####@####.#### 'Alex Holden'
####@####.####
Cc: ####@####.#### ####@####.####
Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 8:39 PM
Subject: Licensing summary
> Let me try to summarize what we need in a graphics system license:
>
> 1. We _must_ have:
> a. The ability to have private, proprietary drivers to be used (NDA's,
> and other commercial non-control issues)
I disagree. If a vendor can take the proprietary route, he probably will.
But if he likes Micro* and wants to use it, and the server part of Micro* is
GPLed (not MPLed) he might be swayed to release his driver, which benefits
our community.
Consider this: "Yes, you can use this cool, free Micro* thingy for your
project, but you have to, uh..., er..., buy our driver to get it to work."
For embedded, it's not like you can just swap out the graphics card to a
supported one like you can in a PC.
Granted, we could reverse engineer the driver, but what I'm saying is that
vendors, if given the ($PL) route, will probably take it, but if we don't
give them that route, they might decide to release their driver, benefitting
everyone.
> b. The ability to work with, communicate with, and be linked with,
> private, proprietary applications. (commercial software shops use our
engine with
> their application; they'll never go open source, but still want/choose our
engine)
This is simply solved by using LGPL on the client side. Take GNOME for an
example.
> 2. We _would_like_to_have:
> a. All modifications to original files, whether they're enhancements
> or bug fixes. It'd be nice to have them back, but not required.
Yes, we would like to have them back, so let's require it for the server
side. Linux does.
> b. A community desiring to better the project as a whole,
> by sending contributions to be included in the whole, whether they're
original
> work, new drivers, or whatever.
If a vendor is on the fence, which way do you think they will go? I think
that they will probably go $PL if given that option. If not given that
option, then I think that they will be more likely to contribute back.
BTW, the MPL has a serious flaw in that you can avoid contributing stuff
back to the project just by putting it in a separate file.
> 3. We _must_not_have:
> a. The ability to use the graphics engine, lock stock and barrel,
> for whatever purposes are desired???? [It is this 3a that I can't quite
come to
> grips with]
Let everyone use it as they please, only require that they release their
improvements back to the community. Is that too much to ask?
Please, let's not fall into the trap of thinking that the success or failure
of Micro* depends on how many embedded vendors pick it up. I think that for
it to truly succeed means that it becomes the best FREE graphics system
available for small devices, and that for it to remain free it needs the
protection that the GNU GPL affords - protection that is certainly NOT
present in (and would be effectively nullified by) the MPL.
It really comes down do this: are we committed to free software, or are we
just trying to please everyone? I hope that we decide that free software is
more important than being popular. Where would we be today if others before
us who were faced with this decision chose the popular way? Would we have
GNU? Would we have Linux? I don't think so, and the same might be said
about Micro* someday... or not.
Regards,
Brad
