nanogui: Licensing
Subject:
Licensing
From:
Warner Losh ####@####.####
Date:
11 May 1999 08:50:34 -0000
Message-Id: <199905110849.CAA10176@harmony.village.org>
: Greg and I have been talking about the licensing of Nano-X, and we've
: decided to open it to the list for discussion.
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
application. It has been successful in FreeBSD where most companies
that are using FreeBSD for their embedded machines have contributed
back fixes for the main-line FreeBSD. Whistle, Jupiter, and Pluto
Technologies all make on going improvements to FreeBSD (I work for
Pluto, so am biased).
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
and bad depending on which side of the debate one lies. I personally
feel that the code is more free when you can do this, but others
counter that software hording is bad.
I've seen large, open source project span many years with both models,
and some inbetween (look at the X11 license, the old CMU license
(Mach, and other stuff), the BSD license, the Stanford license and the
GPL). All of these licenses predate Linux, and variations on these
themes have gone back for a long time.
However, I don't think it matters much either way, since I've seen
several embedded companies use Linux and then openly ignore the GPL
when pressed for sources. The GPL has problems of its own (like its
virus like tendancy to invade all code merely linked in), so it is a
hard call. The GPL has never been tested in a court of law. I
believe that the BSD was tested, but there was no ruling because AT&T
settled UCB's claims against them before judgement.
Warner
