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

                      Working...
                      X