Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ATI R300 Mesa, Gallium3D Compared To Catalyst

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by monraaf View Post

    On the other hand, the more liberal license of the graphics stack has not yielded in any significant contributions from the BSD camp. And they've been leeching on Linux code for quite some time now.
    If you use code under the code's license, in the way it was intended, how can you be a leech?

    Comment


    • #62
      Simply by differentiating between laws and ethics.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by rohcQaH View Post
        Simply by differentiating between laws and ethics.
        How is it unethical to use code in the way it's intended to be used by the license that was chosen by the developers?

        Adam

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
          Originally posted by yotambien
          It's not about developers, but about users (that's you). There's a reason why the licenses are either MIT or LGPL. Programs (thus users) have to use those libraries, regardless of what license those programs are written on. Or else you won't play much Q3 with the OSS drivers.
          Actually, if it's LGPLed only, it'd not impact the users at all.

          It really is more about the pool of available people willing to do the work and have the right skills to do it. It's not an easy thing doing this stuff- and at least until Gallium's done, you're going to need a developer at least a couple of cuts above average to do the work.
          There is no point to argue here. I was answering moonraf, who was wondering whether licensing the graphics stack to the GPL would attract more developers. In this case, the choice of license has less to do with the developers and more to do with the possible uses their work will have. MIT and LGPL are fine in this respect, GPL is not. Of course, maybe moonraf was referring to LGPL all the time when he wrote GPL, I don't know.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by adamk View Post
            If you use code under the code's license, in the way it was intended, how can you be a leech?
            Here's the Wikipedia definition of a leech:

            In computing and specifically on the Internet, being a leech or leecher refers to the practice of benefiting, usually deliberately, from others' information or effort but not offering anything in return, or only token offerings in an attempt to avoid being called a leech. In economics this type of behavior is called "Free riding" and is associated with the Free rider problem.
            Now such behavior may be allowed by the license, the U.S. Constitution or by God, it doesn't really matter. A leech is still a leech even when it is perfectly in it's legal right to do so.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by yotambien View Post
              There is no point to argue here. I was answering moonraf, who was wondering whether licensing the graphics stack to the GPL would attract more developers. In this case, the choice of license has less to do with the developers and more to do with the possible uses their work will have. MIT and LGPL are fine in this respect, GPL is not. Of course, maybe moonraf was referring to LGPL all the time when he wrote GPL, I don't know.
              I don't know who is 'moonraf', but I suspect you're referring to me. For the kernel side of the graphics stack (i.e. drm) GPL should be fine. I'm quite aware that for users space libraries the situation is a little different and that's why I wrote that I would be in favor of the LGPL license.

              Comment


              • #67
                Ahhh.. So as a user who doesn't actually contribute code, you (and I) would be considered a leech since we benefit from others' information or effort without offering much in return.

                The FreeBSD DRM developers actually contribute code (even if it's only BSD specific code), making them slightly less of a leech than you or I :-)

                Adam

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by adamk View Post
                  Ahhh.. So as a user who doesn't actually contribute code, you (and I) would be considered a leech since we benefit from others' information or effort without offering much in return.
                  Actually I did invest some of my time in testing and localizing bugs and did contribute a tiny bit of code. So I do contribute a little, as time and knowledge permits me.

                  The FreeBSD DRM developers actually contribute code (even if it's only BSD specific code), making them slightly less of a leech than you or I :-)
                  In my book porting code is not the same as contributing code

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Leeching is simply taking without putting back. If Microsoft takes it without handing out it is simply leeching.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                      Leeching is simply taking without putting back. If Microsoft takes it without handing out it is simply leeching.
                      And all end-users are by definition leeches whereas developers are contributors? I find it hard to find a point in this kind of arguing unless the point is to try to make people feel guilty.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        My only real point is that I dislike the negative conotation of the world leech as it was used earlier. Developers who use the BSD/MIT licenses do so because they want their code to be used by others, whether those others give back or not.

                        So while the FreeBSD DRM developer (as their really is only one at this point) may be a leech by some arbitrary Wikipedia definition (which probably a large percentage of the users on this board, and in general, would fall under), I have to disagree with that particular classification.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Just for the record I wasn't calling the person who is porting the Linux graphics stack to FreeBSD a leech. My comment was more targeted at the BSD community, who have shown a great deal of hostility towards Linux yet at the same time are depending on handouts coming from the Linux side. Same goes for the rabid GPL hatred and gcc usage with the BSD community.

                          I guess the old saying "don't bite the hand that feeds you" isn't very well known within the BSD community.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by monraaf View Post
                            Just for the record I wasn't calling the person who is porting the Linux graphics stack to FreeBSD a leech. My comment was more targeted at the BSD community, who have shown a great deal of hostility towards Linux yet at the same time are depending on handouts coming from the Linux side. Same goes for the rabid GPL hatred and gcc usage with the BSD community.

                            I guess the old saying "don't bite the hand that feeds you" isn't very well known within the BSD community.
                            Fascinating... So you look at the reactions of a few vocal idiots and assume that applies to the BSD community. I think you'll find very little GPL hatred, per se, in the BSD community, just a preferences for MIT/BSD software over GPL software, and a desire to remove GPL software from the base BSD distributions.

                            By your logic, I could look at the linux community and say that it consists of fools who only use linux because they hate Windows. You and I both know that's not true. There are some vocal folks who only use linux because they hate windows. That doesn't mean everyone in the linux community does so.

                            As for these "handouts" coming from the linux side... I'm not really sure I understand what you're talking about. If the BSD developers are using code from linux, they must be following the license and releasing their changes to the world. Hardly leeches, in my mind.

                            Adam

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              AFAIK the only "anti-GPL" sentiment from the BSD community comes from the fact that if BSD/MIT/X11 code is relicensed to GPL (which is allowed) then enhanced, the resulting changes can not be brought back into BSD without effectively GPL-ifying the entire BSD stack, so the changes end up not being available to the BSD community.

                              If the same work is done while keeping a BSD license on the code (BSD code can be used in a GPL project) then changes can flow both ways.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                I really don't even think the BSD folks care that much about those kinds of situations, from what I've seen on the mailing lists and forums. As I said above, they chose their license specifically to allow for code to be relicensed in other projects.

                                I know there was some animosity a while back when BSD code was code in a public git or cvs repo for some linux driver, stripped of all copyright. But that's certainly deserved :-)

                                Adam

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X