[Open-graphics] Someone cited us, thinks they can do it cheaper
mickeymeeuw at gmail.com
Sun Nov 11 17:12:06 EST 2007
(If it appears that I'm replying slow, I'm just being flooded by
replies right now.. I love it)
On 11 Nov 2007, at 21:45, Timothy Normand Miller wrote:
> On 11/11/07, Michael Meeuwisse <mickeymeeuw at gmail.com> wrote:
>> IANAL and not a business person either, but I just wanted to make
>> sure that there isn't a smart-ass out there who starts producing my
>> design and selling it, without giving me (and thus, the project) a
>> penny. With GPL or some-sort, I think they might be able to actually
>> do that, so I tagged CC-NC-SA-3.0 on it for now.
> OGD1 isn't in any better position. In fact, our more expensive design
> (in terms of development costs and production costs) puts us at
> greater risk. However, we've put a GPL license on it, for what it's
> worth. Frankly, with the exception of a wholesale identical copy, any
> of us would have some trouble proving in court that someone had nicked
> our design.
What you really have is a dual-license, with one end being GPL, if I
understood correctly. If you want to contribute to the project, you
have to agree with both licenses. Right? In any case, I want to go
with something like that as well but as I said, IANAL, so I can't
just write up a second license like that. That's why I went for the
CC right now, it makes it possible to give all this info without me
having to worry about the legal nitty details first.
> Also, to be honest, the company most likely to want to clone your
> design would be Traversal, and we wouldn't "just take it." Even if
> you had put GPL on it, we are acutely aware of the personal and
> ethical aspects of doing a design like this. We would negotiate a
> mutually-beneficial arrangement, or failing that, drop the idea
Call me cynical, but the world isn't that pretty. Still, good to know ;)
>> Another point what I'd like to make is that my recent 'interest' in
>> how OGP is going to tackle VGA is largely also self-interest. If I'll
>> be able to load (at least parts) of the design into my card, I'll be
>> saving buckets of time. And hopefully vice versa.
> We're definitely on the same page here. Do take note of our SVN
> commit policy so that you can make informed choices about what parts
> of your work become available to Traversal for commercial licensing.
This is all a bit future talk, but now that you bring this up I might
as well continue on it;
Right now what isn't clear for me is whether or not I could use any
code from the SVN with 'just' the GPL license above it. I believe
that's not the case, and if my card would at some point be mass
produced, that would cause troubles because I wouldn't be able to
flash this code on it. The second clause of the license doesn't
exactly cover this titbit. If it's left out, do the other clauses
still matter (clause 4 for example won't make sense).
Long story short, will I be able to use stuff from SVN with just a
GPL license slapped on it instead of the dual license?
All code I'm writing myself will be put under any licenses at my
discretion, so I can put it in license X* for my own project and the
'traversal license' for OGP. Which I will, if that piece is useful
for OGP. But the moment other people start adding to project VGA
there's a change the above story occurs, but then that OGP has to
work it's way around license X.
In all cases we want to avoid a whole linux-steals-from-bsd story
there was recently.
> Timothy Normand Miller
> Open Graphics Project
www.wacco.mveas.com - Project VGA
*X being whatever it ends up being, some kind of dual license thing.
More information about the Open-graphics