[Open-graphics] does open graphics board run initialization code on the host cpu ?

[André Pouliot]

The license for the HDL is under dual license GPLv2 and a license to 
Transversal technology. If someone want to make is own board or re-use 
the code he is free to do so for non commercial purpose. If someone want 
to use the HDL code for any commercials activity they must talk with 
Transversal.

The code under MIT is for the software, BIOS and driver. The reason is 
for enabling anyone to develop for any platform CPU/OS, since we just 
want people to use the card or the asic in the future.

PcgScrapAddy wrote:
> But does the MIT license allow for a built-in revenue stream? My 
> current understanding is someone, once the project is done and making 
> boards/chips, could swoop in and grab all your docs/code/etc. and then 
> produce their own board at a much lower cost and leave you high and 
> dry. What protections have you factored into the project to handle a 
> situation such as that?
>
> Under that scenario you have an instant competitor without them having 
> incurred any cost. If the point is to just get open hardware out there 
> and damn the ramifications then ok but if you are looking to seal up 
> deals where your chipset funds ongoing work then you may have a 
> problem since nvidia and ati will both scoop on that in a heartbeat.
>
> Not trying to be a downer here but you can trust business weenies 
> about as much as politicians and lawyers so ...
>
> Timothy Normand Miller wrote:
>> On 2/29/08, PcgScrapAddy <pcgscrap at comcast.net> wrote:
>>> The Linux drivers need to be GPL so they can be included in the 
>>> mainline
>>>  kernel but we are so far away from that I shouldn't even mention 
>>> it. The
>>>  rest of the stuff needs to be under a MySQL like license in that if 
>>> you
>>>  are commercial then pay up! I think this is what is being striven 
>>> for so
>>>  a revenue stream is built-in to support ongoing development.
>>>
>>>  Am I wrong?
>>
>> GPL, especially v3, is compatible with MIT in the sense that something
>> that was under MIT can be combined with GPL code without problems.
>> There is also room for automatically relicensing MIT code under GPL
>> because MIT doesn't have any major requirements that are incompatible
>> with the GPL.  Finally, if any situation were to arise where the MIT
>> license caused a problem for combining with GPL, we would explicitly
>> relicense it under GPL.
>>
>> The major reason to have any license at all is legal.  If you release
>> something in to the public domain, you can get sued over it.  These
>> licenses, on the other hand, have protection clauses that state that
>> if you use it, the authors are not held responsible for any harm you
>> may suffer through the use of our stuff.  Of course, those clauses
>> don't universally hold up in court, but it's still good CYA.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Open-graphics mailing list
> Open-graphics at duskglow.com
> http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
> List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
>