From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: andrew@walrond.org
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-reply-to: <3E1A16A5.8070903@walrond.org> (message from Andrew Walrond on
	Mon, 06 Jan 2003 23:52:05 +0000)
Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-freedrivers?
Reply-to: rms@gnu.org
References: <1041725489.1770.36.camel@sbarn.net> <E18VNtv-000065-00@fencepost.gnu.org> <3E19517B.3030805@walrond.org> <E18VeCE-0006XW-00@fencepost.gnu.org> <3E1A16A5.8070903@walrond.org>
Message-Id: <E18Vyhp-0007S3-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 13:44:05 -0500
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2497
Lines: 52

    So If I spend $X developing my game and then sell it closed with the 
    stated intention of opening the source as soon as it has recouped a 
    reasonable return on my investment, this would get your official seal of 
    approval?

Not quite.  We can't count on this to result in free software.

1. An open source program may or may not be free software.  I'd have
to know what license you would use, and be sure it was a free software
license, in order to expect that this would produce free software.
(See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html.)

2. There's no time limit.  "As soon as it has recouped a reasonable
return" could mean years from now, or never.  As a result, even if you
specify a specific free software license that you will use, we still
can't count on this to make the package free software in any
reasonable time.

If these two points were suitably changed, this becomes a plan that I
might recommend to you if you were otherwise going to keep the
software non-free and there were no better possibility.  However, I
could not recommend actually using the software while it is non-free.

    But isn't this exactly what Andre has been lambasted for? Perhaps you 
    should step in and say a few words in his defence.

I don't know what Andre plans to do.  I find it difficult to read
those messages--every sentence seems to have various interpretations.
Maybe it violates the GPL, maybe it doesn't.  Maybe it falls within
the permission that the Linux developers have given for non-free
modules.  It seems to concern protocols I don't know anything about.

Since the issue does not concern the FSF directly, I don't need to try
to figure it out.  I am leaving the issue to others.

    Perhaps not. But my 40 software developing staff are still going to be 
    mightily pissed when I don't make payroll.

In a capitalist system, creation and loss of jobs are normal.
Unemployment is normal too--and the level of unemployment is
controlled by macroeconomic factors.  To employ 40 people in one
particular way cannot justify making a program non-free.

It is impossible to tell whether a world of free software would
provide more employment or less employment.  There is too much
that we do not know.

-
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/