[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [f-cpu] Re: Project short description

Juergen Goeritz a écrit :
> 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.
> Hi Michael,
> 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...

GPL is a copyright based licence so it cover only text file. All library
or things like that aren't concern at all. I should discuss with a
lawyer from April but i didn't see her at the "first jeudi" a meeting in
Paris for the linuxfr.org reader. That's a pitty because this issue
should be more precise.


> >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.
> JG
> *************************************************************
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@seul.org with
> unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@seul.org with
unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/