[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:0.181 / U:0.972 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site