[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?
    On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 16:16, David Schwartz wrote:
    > On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 12:51:04 +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote:
    > >Yes but....
    > >I develop computer games. The last one I did took a team of 35 people 2
    > >years and cost $X million to develop.
    > >Please explain how I could do this as free software, while still feeding
    > >my people? Am I a bad person charging for my work?
    > >Really - I want to understand so I too can join this merry band of happy
    > >people giving everything away for free!
    > You can't with the GPL, because it presents you with a "take it or leave it"
    > package deal. But you could with a different license.
    > What you do is you base your game off of whatever open source code gets you
    > the furthest. The game itself, of course, is closed source. After your first
    > few months of sales, you contribute some of the code you wrote back to the
    > open source community.
    > Why shouldn't you? It hurts you not one bit and it's free publicity. Heck,
    > after a few year, maybe you open source the whole game.
    > The next person to write a game can start where you left off to some extent.
    > He can develop a better game for less money, and he can contribute more code
    > back to the community. Eventually, there may be enough code in the comnunity
    > to develop such complex games entirely open source.
    > However, with a license like the GPL, every game has to be developed on a
    > proprietary base. You simply can't afford to put any money into an open
    > source base. So every game has to start back from square one, or the most
    > advanced proprietary base that can be found.
    > Everybody loses except the person who makes the proprietary base or engine
    > you started with. I think working to make all software better and cheaper is
    > much more noble goal than working to arm twist other people into giving you
    > their code.
    > And the best part is, you can work to strengthen fair use, first sale, and
    > oppose the validity of shrink wrap licenses. You can argue for a narrower
    > definition of a derived work. In fact, you can at least *try* to win the
    > legal war.
    > DS

    That is not right. The problem is that all people think that you can't
    sell a game if it is Free Software. If the game is good you can. People
    buy paintings and public domain classic music...

    > -
    > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    > the body of a message to
    > More majordomo info at
    > Please read the FAQ at
    Marco Monteiro

    "All the world's a stage and most of us are desperately unrehearsed."
    --Sean O'Casey
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.029 / U:1.152 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site