I think we were suckered into the GPL by lawyers ;)
Seriously though, I believe the GPL is the biggest impediment to
gnu/linux and open source software that anyone could possibly come up
with. Frankly I'm suprised NVidia and others bother supporting linux,
but am very glad they do.
IMO The only license we need is
"Here is, for what it's worth, some software. You can use it in any way
you like; modify it, fix it and if you can make some money from it -
great! Go feed your family. Fixes, changes and improvements are always
welcome, but not mandatory. Enjoy!"
We'd likely have to set up a hardship fund for lawyers though. Wouldn't
want them to starve ;)
Too late for gnu/linux though. :(
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> I think we were suckered into the GPL by lawyers ;)
>
> Seriously though, I believe the GPL is the biggest impediment to
> gnu/linux and open source software that anyone could possibly come up
> with. Frankly I'm suprised NVidia and others bother supporting linux,
> but am very glad they do.
>
> IMO The only license we need is
>
> "Here is, for what it's worth, some software. You can use it in any way
> you like; modify it, fix it and if you can make some money from it -
> great! Go feed your family. Fixes, changes and improvements are always
> welcome, but not mandatory. Enjoy!"
>
> We'd likely have to set up a hardship fund for lawyers though. Wouldn't
> want them to starve ;)
>
> Too late for gnu/linux though. :(
So you want a BSD licence...
There are strong reasons why GPL is a good thing and I prefer it to BSD.
IMO GPL makes it easier to add code to a common base without risking
someone taking the code and adding code+theircode and releasing a
proprietary competing project what's always 3 steps ahead of the open
source version. For all the complaints it gets the GPL does what it's
designed to do and that's a good thing.
Gerhard
--
Gerhard Mack
[email protected]
<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 12:21:59 -0500 (EST), Gerhard Mack wrote:
>There are strong reasons why GPL is a good thing and I prefer it to BSD.
>IMO GPL makes it easier to add code to a common base without risking
>someone taking the code and adding code+theircode and releasing a
>proprietary competing project what's always 3 steps ahead of the open
>source version. For all the complaints it gets the GPL does what it's
>designed to do and that's a good thing.
I don't understand why making proprietary software better and cheaper than
it would otherwise be is a bad thing.
It will be better because it will have a stronger base to build on. It will
be cheaper both because it will be easier to construct and because it will
have to compete with free software that is more similar to it.
And, believe it or not, free software benefits as much from competition as
proprietary software does.
DS
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 12:21:59 -0500 (EST), Gerhard Mack wrote:
>
> >There are strong reasons why GPL is a good thing and I prefer it to BSD.
> >IMO GPL makes it easier to add code to a common base without risking
> >someone taking the code and adding code+theircode and releasing a
> >proprietary competing project what's always 3 steps ahead of the open
> >source version. For all the complaints it gets the GPL does what it's
> >designed to do and that's a good thing.
>
> I don't understand why making proprietary software better and cheaper than
> it would otherwise be is a bad thing.
>
> It will be better because it will have a stronger base to build on. It will
> be cheaper both because it will be easier to construct and because it will
> have to compete with free software that is more similar to it.
>
> And, believe it or not, free software benefits as much from competition as
> proprietary software does.
>
> DS
AH! A man of reason here!
It would be nice if "LI" got in the business of issuing license
subscriptions for binary only modules. Where the binary vendor must
register and pay a royality fee. This fee would be used to support "LI"
and defend Linux in a court case if needed.
I personally would gladly pay a reasonable (usual and customary) fee for
the service and right to sell binary models with out having to pay a
lawyer to write a "position" and be prepared to sue every snot nose brat
in the world.
Otherwise, one has to deal with unreasonable people.
There are people who do not work for distros or have found that other
companies want to control their contributions to GPL, but need a means to
support themselves with there other works related to emerging
technologies.
Obviously I am being way to sensible about the issue, and should go use
NetBSD instead and give them the license money.
Regards,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> I think we were suckered into the GPL by lawyers ;)
>
> Seriously though, I believe the GPL is the biggest impediment to
> gnu/linux and open source software that anyone could possibly come up
> with. Frankly I'm suprised NVidia and others bother supporting linux,
> but am very glad they do.
>
> IMO The only license we need is
>
> "Here is, for what it's worth, some software. You can use it in any way
> you like; modify it, fix it and if you can make some money from it -
> great! Go feed your family. Fixes, changes and improvements are always
> welcome, but not mandatory. Enjoy!"
We don't need a 2nd BSD license, one is more than enough. Let Linux and
BSD offer alternatives. Of course given the relative success of Linux and
BSD I think we can safely say that the decision has been made as to which
will be more appealing to users, although I'm not totally sure why.
I actually prefer a license which says may be freely used in open source
freely redistributable software, and otherwise requires a commercial
license with royalty. In other words, "this is my gift to humanity to be
freely used and enjoyed. If you insist on limiting or concealing it I want
to make money on it, too."
--
bill davidsen <[email protected]>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> I think we were suckered into the GPL by lawyers ;)
>
> Seriously though, I believe the GPL is the biggest impediment to
> gnu/linux and open source software that anyone could possibly come up
> with. Frankly I'm suprised NVidia and others bother supporting linux,
> but am very glad they do.
Frankly, I'm surprised there are people out there who don't _like_ freedom
(and the perpetuation thereof.)
>
> IMO The only license we need is
>
> "Here is, for what it's worth, some software. You can use it in any way
> you like; modify it, fix it and if you can make some money from it -
> great! Go feed your family. Fixes, changes and improvements are always
> welcome, but not mandatory. Enjoy!"
That's the gist of the BSD license :-)
>
> We'd likely have to set up a hardship fund for lawyers though. Wouldn't
> want them to starve ;)
>
> Too late for gnu/linux though. :(
>
Too late for you to screw it up?
I take it you're not very interested in perpetuation of freedom.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote:
>
> > I think we were suckered into the GPL by lawyers ;)
> >
> > Seriously though, I believe the GPL is the biggest impediment to
> > gnu/linux and open source software that anyone could possibly come up
> > with. Frankly I'm suprised NVidia and others bother supporting linux,
> > but am very glad they do.
> >
> > IMO The only license we need is
> >
> > "Here is, for what it's worth, some software. You can use it in any way
> > you like; modify it, fix it and if you can make some money from it -
> > great! Go feed your family. Fixes, changes and improvements are always
> > welcome, but not mandatory. Enjoy!"
>
> We don't need a 2nd BSD license, one is more than enough. Let Linux and
> BSD offer alternatives. Of course given the relative success of Linux and
> BSD I think we can safely say that the decision has been made as to which
> will be more appealing to users, although I'm not totally sure why.
>
> I actually prefer a license which says may be freely used in open source
> freely redistributable software, and otherwise requires a commercial
> license with royalty. In other words, "this is my gift to humanity to be
> freely used and enjoyed. If you insist on limiting or concealing it I want
> to make money on it, too."
Cheers! Another person of reason.
However you argument is flawed because how do you divide the royalty?
It can only work if there is a trusted body made up of sane people like
yourself and nutters like Hell.Surfers. Then you need a few kernel kooks
in the mix.
Something like a Corporate Board for Linux ... sigh ...
This will never happen, because ....
Regards,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 01:26:24PM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> AH! A man of reason here!
> It would be nice if "LI" got in the business of issuing license
> subscriptions for binary only modules. Where the binary vendor must
> register and pay a royality fee. This fee would be used to support "LI"
> and defend Linux in a court case if needed.
> I personally would gladly pay a reasonable (usual and customary) fee for
> the service and right to sell binary models with out having to pay a
> lawyer to write a "position" and be prepared to sue every snot nose brat
> in the world.
> Otherwise, one has to deal with unreasonable people.
> There are people who do not work for distros or have found that other
> companies want to control their contributions to GPL, but need a means to
> support themselves with there other works related to emerging
> technologies.
> Obviously I am being way to sensible about the issue, and should go use
> NetBSD instead and give them the license money.
I don't give two hoots about the money or the open/closed stuff in the
context of "Is it the right thing to do?" or "What should nvidia do?"
nvidia's drivers have developed a bad reputation, at least in my mind,
and I don't want their bugreports (even though RH was hurt worst here),
and I don't want my betatesters adding that unknown into the equation.
Supposedly they've improved lately, not that I care. One only need be
bitten once.
Maybe having no way to prove a bug's fixed is a downside of binary modules.
Bill