[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: [f-cpu] Re: Project short description
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Michael Riepe wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 11:28:27AM +0200, Juergen Goeritz wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Michael Riepe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 09:37:01AM +0200, Juergen Goeritz wrote:
> > > > But you also want to keep control. Ain't that a contradiction?
> > >
> > > No. We're the `benevolent dictators' who keep control to prevent
> > > (probably malevolent) others from gaining control. You wouldn't want
> > > Microsoft to buy Linux, would you?
> > Why would they want to buy 'good code'? By the way, why
> > would you want to sell a free source anyway? All you
> > could sell is the company. But that doesn't mean your
> > free code will be less free afterwards.
> Code that is free remains free, that's right. But the problem with
> LGPL (as opposed to GPL) is that companies can add proprietary parts
> and redistribute the result without having to release the source of the
> *complete* program/system. The LGPLed part is still free, but the work
> as a whole is neither free nor open.
> Free Software (the *real*, GPLed one) comes at a price: if you use it,
> you can no longer hide behind patents, trade secrets, NDAs, lawyers and
> so on. We don't play "Null ouvert" -- you have to show your cards, too.
> If you don't like that -- don't use Free Software.
thanks for explaining your point of view about free software.
But with your remarks it does not seem to be free any more,
but some kind of shared software. Why should one develop this
software on, if one can't make a living of this?
On the hardware side its a different world. One cannot just
build a chip. One has to relate to a certain process and a
certain library of a certain vendor to really make one. The
chip manufacturing process is not comparable to the software
development process. One works with acid/toxic things in
expensive cleanroom environments using expensive machines.
This means one has to invest a lot of money if one wants
a design to be manufatured into a chip. Of course this is a
very easy explanation...
From this point of view I cannot follow your idea that one
has to share all the 'intelligence' that will be put into
the design. Worst case szenario is that you want the asic
manufacturer to open all their know-how as well. Did you
draw the border in the license for f-cpu where it stops?
Therefore my opinion is to use a more open license for
all hardware related things. Maybe LGPL is not the best
but it is at least a start.
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to email@example.com with
unsubscribe f-cpu in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/