Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S267332AbTABWTE>; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 17:19:04 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S267336AbTABWTE>; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 17:19:04 -0500
Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:16134
	"EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S267332AbTABWTC>; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 17:19:02 -0500
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 13:56:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>
To: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
cc: Linux-Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GPL and Nvidia
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1030102162253.20297A-100000@gatekeeper.tmr.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10301021348460.421-100000@master.linux-ide.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2001
Lines: 49

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

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/