nanogui: Licensing summary
Subject:
Re: Licensing summary
From:
Daniel R Risacher ####@####.####
Date:
5 Oct 1999 18:52:52 -0000
Message-Id: <m2905hfy3n.fsf@alum.mit.edu>
>>>>> "Brad" == Bradley D LaRonde ####@####.#### writes:
Brad> ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Haerr
Brad> ####@####.####
>> 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)
Brad> I disagree.
I disagree with your disagreement!
You're simplifying the issue too much. It's not us-vs-them.
Example: I want to run NanoX on top of eCos on next year's CoolPalm.
Cool-Hand-Tech, Inc. is a free-friendly company, and they'd love to
write NanoX drivers in addition to their planned WinCE drivers.
Unfortunately, they're under NDA to Fascist Chips, Inc., (who makes
their video chip) and therefore they cannot release the source to the
driver for their own hardware! If the NanoX license won't allow them
to release a binary-only driver, then they will sigh and not support
NanoX at all. I, Joe User, get shafted.
These issues are precisely the same as the ones that face XFree86.
Philosophical aside:
I work on free software because I'm not a hoarder. I believe in
helping people and making the world better. What do I care if company
X takes my stuff and uses it in their commercial product? More power
to them! I wrote it to be used, and a bigger user base means more
mindshare. I want to encourage them to contribute improvements back,
but if they don't, it doesn't slow the free community down. I'm no
worse off than if they didn't use it at all.
I love the GPL, but there are times when it's not the best thing. In
this case, Open is Better.
--
Daniel Risacher ####@####.####
